American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout
01 Jan 2013-Vol. 37, Iss: 2, pp 139
About: The article was published on 2013-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 416 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Rheumatology.
Citations
More filters
University of Michigan1, University of California, Los Angeles2, University of Rochester3, Boston Medical Center4, New York University5, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation6, University of California, San Diego7, University of Otago8, Paris Diderot University9, University of Alabama at Birmingham10, University of Auckland11, Emory University12, Veterans Health Administration13, University of California, Irvine14, University of Florida15, Cleveland Clinic16, University of Pennsylvania17, Harvard University18
TL;DR: DINESH KHanNA, JOHN D. FITZGERALD, PUJA P. KHANNA, SANGMEE BAE, MANJIT K. SINGH, TUHINA NEOGI, MICHAEL H. PILLINGER, JOAN MERILL, SUSAN LEE, SHRADDHA PRAKASH, MARIAN KALDAS, MANEESH GOGIA, FERNANDO PEREZ-RUI
Abstract: DINESH KHANNA, JOHN D. FITZGERALD, PUJA P. KHANNA, SANGMEE BAE, MANJIT K. SINGH, TUHINA NEOGI, MICHAEL H. PILLINGER, JOAN MERILL, SUSAN LEE, SHRADDHA PRAKASH, MARIAN KALDAS, MANEESH GOGIA, FERNANDO PEREZ-RUIZ, WILL TAYLOR, FREDERIC LIOTE, HYON CHOI, JASVINDER A. SINGH, NICOLA DALBETH, SANFORD KAPLAN, VANDANA NIYYAR, DANIELLE JONES, STEVEN A. YAROWS, BLAKE ROESSLER, GAIL KERR, CHARLES KING, GERALD LEVY, DANIEL E. FURST, N. LAWRENCE EDWARDS, BRIAN MANDELL, H. RALPH SCHUMACHER, MARK ROBBINS, NEIL WENGER, AND ROBERT TERKELTAUB
1,335 citations
University of Michigan1, University of California, Los Angeles2, University of Rochester3, Boston Medical Center4, New York University5, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation6, University of California, San Diego7, University of Otago8, Paris Diderot University9, University of Alabama at Birmingham10, University of Auckland11, Emory University12, Veterans Health Administration13, University of California, Irvine14, University of Florida15, Cleveland Clinic16, University of Pennsylvania17, Harvard University18
TL;DR: These guidelines for the management and anti-inflammatory prophylaxis of acute attacks of gouty arthritis complements the manuscript on guidelines to treat hyperuricemia in patients with evidence of gouts and involves a diverse and international panel of experts.
Abstract: In response to a request for proposal from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), our group was charged with developing non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic guidelines for treatments in gout that are safe and effective, i.e., with acceptable risk-benefit ratio. These guidelines for the management and anti-inflammatory prophylaxis of acute attacks of gouty arthritis complements our manuscript on guidelines to treat hyperuricemia in patients with evidence of gout (or gouty arthritis) (1).
Gout is the most common cause of inflammatory arthritis in adults in the USA. Clinical manifestations in joints and bursa are superimposed on top of local deposition of monosodium urate crystals. Acute gout characteristically presents as self-limited, attack of synovitis (also called “gout flares”). Acute gout attacks account for a major component of the reported decreased health-related quality of life in patients with gout (2, 3). Acute gout attacks can be debilitating and are associated with decreased work productivity (4, 5).
Urate lowering therapy (ULT) is a cornerstone in the management of gout, and, when effective in lowering serum urate (SUA), is associated with decreased risk of acute gouty attacks (6). However, during the initial phase of ULT, there is an early increase in acute gout attacks, which has been hypothesized due to remodeling of articular urate crystal deposits as a result of rapid and substantial lowering of ambient urate concentrations (7). Acute gout attacks attributable to the initiation of ULT may contribute to non-adherence in long-term gout treatment, as reported in recent studies (8).
In order to systematically evaluate a broad spectrum of acute gouty arthritis, we generated multifaceted case scenarios to elucidate decision making based primarily on clinical and laboratory test-based data that can be obtained in a gout patient by both non-specialist and specialist health care providers in an office practice setting. This effort was not intended to create a novel classification system of gout, or new gout diagnostic criteria, as such endeavors are beyond the scope of this work.
Prior gout recommendations and guidelines, at the independent (i.e, non pharmaceutical industry-sponsored) national or multinational rheumatology society level, have been published by EULAR (9, 10), the Dutch College of General Practitioners (11), and the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR)(12). The ACR requested new guidelines, in view of the increasing prevalence of gout (13), the clinical complexity of management of gouty arthritis imposed by co-morbidities common in gout patients (14), and increasing numbers of treatment options via clinical development of agents(15–17). The ACR charged us to develop these guidelines to be useful for both rheumatologists and other health care providers on an international level. As such, this process and resultant recommendations, involved a diverse and international panel of experts.
In this manuscript, we concentrate on 2 of the 4 gout domains that the ACR requested for evaluation of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic management approaches: (i) analgesic and anti-inflammatory management of acute attacks of gouty arthritis, and (ii) pharmacologic anti-inflammatory prophylaxis of acute attacks of gouty arthritis. Part I of the guidelines focused on systematic non-pharmacologic measures (patient education, diet and lifestyle choices, identification and management of co-morbidities) that impact on hyperuricemia, and made recommendations on pharmacologic ULT in a broad range of case scenarios of patients with disease activity manifested by acute and chronic forms of gouty arthritis, including chronic tophaceous gouty arthropathy(1). Each individual and specific statement is designated as a “recommendation”, in order to reflect the non-prescriptive nature of decision making for the hypothetical clinical scenarios.
So that the voting panel could focus on gout treatment decisions, a number of key assumptions were made, as described in Part I of the guidelines (1). Importantly, each proposed recommendation assumed that correct diagnoses of gout and acute gouty arthritis attacks had been made for the voting scenario in question. For treatment purposes, it was also assumed that treating clinicians were competent, and considered underlying medical comorbidities (including diabetes, gastrointestinal disease, hypertension, and hepatic, cardiac, and renal disease), and potential drug toxicities and drug-drug interactions, when making both treatment choicesand dosing decisions on chosen pharmacologic interventions. The RAND/UCLA methodology used here emphasizes level of evidence, safety, and quality of therapy, and excludes analyses of societal cost of health care. As such, the ACR gout guidelines are designed to reflect best practice, supported either by level of evidence or consensus-based decision-making. These guidelines cannot substitute for individualized, direct assessment of the patient, coupled with clinical decision making by a competent health care practitioner. The motivation, financial circumstances, and preferences of the gout patient also need to be considered in clinical practice, and it is incumbent on the treating clinician to weigh the issues not addressed by this methodology, such as treatment costs, when making management decisions. Last, the guidelines for gout management presented herein were not designed to determine eligibility for health care cost coverage by third party payers.
574 citations
TL;DR: The therapeutic use of colchicine has extended beyond gouty arthritis and familial Mediterranean fever, to osteoarthritis, pericarditis, and atherosclerosis, and further understanding of the mechanisms of action underlying the therapeutic efficacy will lead to its potential use in a variety of conditions.
548 citations
Saint Louis University1, Hennepin County Medical Center2, Tufts University3, Wake Forest University4, Mansoura University5, Northwestern University6, University of Minnesota7, Apollo Hospitals8, The Chinese University of Hong Kong9, Johns Hopkins University10, Mayo Clinic11, University of Toronto12, Heidelberg University13, University of Western Ontario14
TL;DR: The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation, and proposed a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making.
Abstract: The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.
376 citations
TL;DR: The demonstrated efficacy of urate-lowering therapy on outcomes other than gout flares leads to the consideration that treatment may be beneficial even in the absence of overt gout when hyperuricemia accompanies other clinical conditions, such as urate deposition, advanced CKD or cardiovascular risk factors.
Abstract: Substantial evidence suggests that chronic hyperuricemia is an independent risk factor for hypertension, metabolic syndrome, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cardiovascular diseases. This highlights the need for greater attention to serum uric acid levels when profiling patients, and suggests that the threshold above which uricemia is considered abnormal is 6 mg/dl, in light of the available evidence. Another important question is whether lowering serum uric acid can improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes, and what therapeutic mechanism of action could provide more clinical benefits to patients; the available literature shows a trend toward improvement associated with administration of urate-lowering drugs, in particular for the xanthine oxidase inhibitors. The demonstrated efficacy of urate-lowering therapy on outcomes other than gout flares leads to the consideration that treatment may be beneficial even in the absence of overt gout when hyperuricemia accompanies other clinical conditions, such as urate deposition, advanced CKD or cardiovascular risk factors.
353 citations