Clinical course and management of a consecutive series of XXXX with "healed @entity226 ".

@entity1 @entity226 @entity228 @entity3468 @entity2760
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical course and management of @entity1 with a pathologic diagnosis of "healed" @entity226 ( @entity226 ), and to determine whether previously published histological descriptions of healed @entity3468 can identify @entity1 with a greater likelihood of clinically significant @entity3468 . METHODS: All temporal artery biopsy reports between 1994 and 2003 were examined for a diagnosis of "healed @entity3468 ." Two rheumatologists abstracted the medical record for presenting features, physical findings, comorbid conditions, and data on treatment and outcomes. One pathologist, blinded to the clinical data, reviewed all specimens and reinterpreted the biopsies according to published histological descriptions of healed @entity3468 . RESULTS: Forty-seven @entity1 with an initial pathologic diagnosis of healed @entity3468 were identified. In 54% of these @entity1 , @entity228 therapy did not change after the diagnosis of healed @entity3468 was documented in the pathology report. Seventy percent were ultimately treated with no corticosteroids or low-moderate @entity228 regimens. Only 32% of the initial cases were confirmed upon review of the biopsies using standardized histological criteria. @entity1 with confirmed healed @entity3468 were more likely to have a documented history of @entity2760 rheumatica/ @entity226 and a longer duration of @entity228 treatment before biopsy. These @entity1 were not more likely to have adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this case series, the diagnosis of healed @entity3468 had little effect on treatment decisions. In most cases, the initial pathologic diagnosis of healed @entity3468 was not confirmed when biopsies were reviewed by a single pathologist using uniform histological criteria.
