[2] The first case was a 21-year-old woman complaining of lowering vision. This episode told us that patients with this disease present with a wide range of symptoms. TAK is classified as one of the two arterites

affecting the large arteries.[3] The other is giant cell arteritis (GCA), which was previously called ‘temporal arteritis’. In this manuscript, we review the latest study results as well as previous literatures and revisit the basics of TAK. Although a relatively large number of patients with TAK are observed check details in Asian countries, patients with TAK have been reported from all over the world.[4] However, previous studies addressing the prevalence of TAK are quite limited. In Japan, a total of 56 diseases, including TAK, are defined as intractable diseases and patients are subjected to a nation-wide FG-4592 purchase questionnaire about their clinical status and history, which is filled in by the clinicians providing their care.[5] According to this nation-wide registry, there were at least 5881 TAK patients in Japan in 2012. Because the primary motive of this registry of clinicians and patients should be financial support for care in TAK, patients with TAK whose disease activity is stable might be missed in this registry. Thus, the real number of patients with this disease should be larger than 6000 in Japan. Considering the population in Japan,

the prevalence Amobarbital is more than 0.004%. Clinical manifestations include fever, fatigue, weight loss, headache, faintness, difference of arterial pressure between bilateral upper or lower limbs and symptoms from severe complications. Long inflammation in branches of the aorta leads to narrowing and occlusion of these arteries and branches. In severe cases, it is very hard to feel pulses in patients with TAK. This is why TAK is also called ‘pulseless disease’. Complications

include aortic regurgitation (AR), pulmonary thrombosis, cerebral infarction, hearing problems, lowering of vision, and in worst cases, blindness. Although the life expectancy of patients with this disease was estimated to be low, the introduction of glucocorticosteroids and immunosuppressants has dramatically improved prognosis of this disease. In fact, prognosis is reported to have improved in patients diagnosed after 1976 compared with patients diagnosed before 1975.[6] This improvement may be partly explained by the development of treatment for this disease and the wide understanding of this disease across physicians. However, this also suggests that the natural course of this disease has been improved by unknown reason(s). Hata et al. reported classification of this disease based on distribution of aortic lesions.[7] However, there are no studies to date supporting associations between these subtypes and clinical outcome and markers.