Abstract
Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common primary systemic vasculitis in western countries, prevalently affecting elderly people. Both early diagnosis and regular monitoring are necessary for the correct management of GCA. Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, government decisions aiming at reducing the contagion led to reductions in health activities, limiting them to urgent cases. At the same time, remote monitoring activities have been implemented through telephone contacts or video calls carried out by specialists. In line with these deep changes affecting the worldwide healthcare system and in consideration of the high risk of GCA morbidity, we activated the TELEMACOV protocol (TELEmedicine and Management of the patient affected by GCA during the COVID-19 pandemic) in order to remotely monitor patients affected by GCA. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of telemedicine in the follow-up of patients already diagnosed with GCA. This was a monocenter observational study. Patients with a previous diagnosis of GCA admitted to the Rheumatology Unit of the University Hospital "Città della Salute e della Scienza" in Turin were monitored every 6-7 weeks by means of video/phone calls from 9 March to 9 June 2020. All patients were asked questions concerning the onset of new symptoms or their recurrence, exams carried out, changes in current therapy, and satisfaction with video/phone calls. We performed 74 remote monitoring visits in 37 GCA patients. Patients were mostly women (77.8%) and had a mean age of 71.85 ± 9.25 years old. The mean disease duration was 5.3 ± 2.3 months. A total of 19 patients received oral glucocorticoids (GC) alone at the time of diagnosis with a daily dose of 0.8-1 mg/kg (52.7 ± 18.3 mg) of prednisone, while 18 patients were treated with a combination of oral steroids (at the time of diagnosis, the prednisone mean dose was 51.7 ± 18.8 mg) and subcutaneous injections of tocilizumab (TCZ). During the follow-up, patients additionally treated with TCZ reduced their GC dose more than patients treated with GC alone (p = 0.03). Only one patient, who was treated with GC alone, had a cranial flare and needed to increase the dosage of GC, which led to rapid improvement. Furthermore, all patients proved very adherent to the therapies (assessed by Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS)) and considered this type of monitoring very satisfactory according to a Likert scale (mean score 4.4 ± 0.2 on a 1-5 range). Our study shows that telemedicine can be safely and effectively used in patients with GCA under control as a possible alternative, at least for a limited period of time, to traditional visits.