Poster Presentations 2019
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.6197
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thu0554 the Clinical Utility of Two Vasculitis Activity Scores(bvas and Bdcaf) in Behçet’s Syndrome:a Prospective Cohort Study

Abstract: Background:Behçet’s Disease(BD) is a rare chronic autoinflammatory condition that can lead to irreversible organ damage. The potential for multi-organ involvement and fluctuating activity highlights the need to perform a careful and systematic assessment of disease activity that is sensitive to change. Several disease activity tools have been used in both daily practice and clinical trials, yet there is no published data comparing the clinical utility of different tools in informing changes to therapy.Objectiv… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This may be related to the fact that the scales examine other organ involvements rather than vascular activation. In a study by Buzatu et al,[ 26 ] it was stated that the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, which evaluates vascular activation in BD patients, was more sensitive than BDCAF. Therefore, not evaluating vascular activation with a scale that evaluates vascular activation in BD patients is a limitation of our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may be related to the fact that the scales examine other organ involvements rather than vascular activation. In a study by Buzatu et al,[ 26 ] it was stated that the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, which evaluates vascular activation in BD patients, was more sensitive than BDCAF. Therefore, not evaluating vascular activation with a scale that evaluates vascular activation in BD patients is a limitation of our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%