Cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities in patients with hyperuricemia and/or gout: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To review the available literature on the likelihood of having cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and on developing CV comorbidities in patients with gout and/or asymptomatic hyperuricemia as an evidence base for generating multinational clinical practice recommendations in the 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative in Rheumatology. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library, and abstracts presented at the 2010/2011 meetings of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism, searching for CV risk factors and new CV comorbidities in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia and/or a diagnosis of gout. Trials that fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria were systematically reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 66 out of 8918 identified publications were included in this review. After assessment of the risk of bias, 32 articles with a high risk of bias were excluded. Data could not be pooled because of clinical and statistical heterogeneity. In general, both for asymptomatic hyperuricemia and for gout the hazard ratios for CV comorbidities were only modestly increased (1.5 to 2.0) as were the hazard ratios for CV risk factors, ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 for hypertension and from 1.0 to 2.4 for diabetes. CONCLUSION: Unlike the common opinion that patients with gout or hyperuricemia are at higher risk of developing CV disease, the actual risk to develop CV disease is either rather weak (for hyperuricemia) or poorly investigated (for gout).

The efficacy and safety of treatments for acute gout: results from a series of systematic literature reviews including Cochrane reviews on intraarticular glucocorticoids, colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and interleukin-1 inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids (GC), colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), interleukin-1 (IL-1) inhibitors, and paracetamol to treat acute gout. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to September 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-RCT in adults with acute gout that compared GC, colchicine, NSAID, IL-1 inhibitors, and paracetamol to no treatment, placebo, another intervention, or combination therapy were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary endpoints were pain and adverse events. Data were pooled where appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty-six trials evaluating GC (N = 5), NSAID (N = 21), colchicine (N = 2), and canakinumab (N = 1) were included. No RCT assessed paracetamol or intraarticular (IA) GC. No RCT compared systemic GC with placebo. Moderate quality evidence (3 trials) concluded that systemic GC were as effective as NSAID but safer. Low quality evidence (1 trial) showed that both high- and low-dose colchicine were more effective than placebo, and low-dose colchicine was no different to placebo with respect to safety but safer than high-dose colchicine. Low quality evidence (1 trial) showed no difference between NSAID and placebo with regard to pain or inflammation. No NSAID was superior to another. Moderate quality evidence (1 trial) found that 150 mg canakinumab was more effective than a single dose of intramuscular GC (40 mg triamcinolone) and equally safe. CONCLUSION: GC, NSAID, low-dose colchicine, and canakinumab all effectively treat acute gout. There was insufficient evidence to rank them. Systemic GC appeared safer than NSAID and lower-dose colchicine was safer than higher-dose colchicine.

Treatment of gout patients with impairment of renal function: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of gout-specific medications in gout patients with a comorbidity and/or comedication. METHODS: A systematic literature search for gout, its medication, and the most common comorbidities and comedications, using serum uric acid (SUA) levels as the primary, and adverse events as the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Eight trials met inclusion criteria. Trials covered treatment with allopurinol, benzbromarone, rasburicase, or febuxostat in a gout population with mild or moderate renal insufficiency. High risk of bias (5/8 trials) and heterogeneity precluded formal metaanalysis. The trials showed the following hierarchy in efficacy (lowering the SUA below 6.0 mg/dl): febuxostat 80 mg (44%-71%) > febuxostat 40 mg (43%-52%) > allopurinol 100 mg or 200 mg (0-46%) after 6 months of therapy; rasburicase (46%) > allopurinol 300 mg (16%) after 7 days of therapy; benzbromarone 100-200 mg (93%) > allopurinol 100-200 mg (63%) after 9-24 months of therapy. The combination of allopurinol and benzbromarone seemed to be effective, with a significant reduction in the SUA from 7.8 to 5.7 mg/dl (p < 0.05) after 1 month. One study showed that 89% achieved the target SUA using higher doses of allopurinol than usually recommended for patients with renal impairment without an apparent increase in adverse events. In addition, allopurinol and benzbromarone significantly improved renal function. CONCLUSION: In gout patients with renal insufficiency febuxostat, rasburicase, benzbromarone, and allopurinol + benzbromarone seemed to be effective and safe; allopurinol may be cautiously titrated until the target uric acid level has been reached, and may improve renal function.

Colchicine for acute gout.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006. Gout is one of the most common rheumatic diseases worldwide. Despite the use of colchicine as one of the first-line therapies for the treatment of acute gout, evidence for its benefits and harms is relatively limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of colchicine for the treatment of acute gout. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases from inception to April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We did not impose any date or language restrictions in the search. We also handsearched conference proceedings of the American College of Rheumatology and the European League against Rheumatism (2010 until 2013) and reference lists of identified studies. We searched the clinical trials register clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO trials register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating colchicine therapy compared with another therapy (active or placebo) in acute gout. The primary benefit outcome of interest was pain, defined as a proportion with 50% or greater decrease in pain, and the primary harm outcome was study participants withdrawal due to adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened search results for relevant studies, extracted data into a standardised form and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We pooled data if deemed to be sufficiently clinically homogeneous. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs (124 participants) were included in this updated review, including one new RCT. We considered one trial to be at low risk of bias, while we considered the newly included trial to be at unclear risk of bias. Both trials included a placebo and a high-dose colchicine arm, although the colchicine regimens varied. In one trial 0.5 mg colchicine was given every two hours until there was either complete relief of symptoms or toxicity and the total doses were not specified. In the other trial a total of 4.8 mg colchicine was given over six hours. The newly identified trial also included a low-dose colchicine arm (total 1.8 mg over one hour).Based upon pooled data from two trials (124 participants), there is low-quality evidence that a greater proportion of people receiving high-dose colchicine experience a 50% or greater decrease in pain from baseline up to 32 to 36 hours compared with placebo (35/74 in the high-dose colchicine group versus 12/50 in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 2.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 3.65), with a number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 12). However, the total number of adverse events (diarrhoea, vomiting or nausea) is greater in those who receive high-dose colchicine versus placebo (62/74 in the high-dose colchicine group versus 11/50 in the placebo group (RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.28 to 6.38), with a number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) of 2 (95% CI 2 to 5). Only one trial included reduction of inflammation as part of a composite measure comprising pain, tenderness, swelling and erythema, each graded on a four-point scale (none 0 to severe 3) to derive a maximum score for any one joint of 12. They reported the proportion of people who achieved a 50% reduction in this composite score. Based upon one trial (43 participants), there was low-quality evidence that more people in the high-dose colchicine group had a 50% or greater decrease in composite score from baseline up to 32 to 36 hours than people in the placebo group (11/22 in the high-dose colchicine group versus 1/21 in the placebo group (RR 10.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 74.38) and 45% absolute difference).Based upon data from one trial (103 participants), there was low-quality evidence that low-dose colchicine is more efficacious than placebo with respect to the proportion of people who achieve a 50% or greater decrease in pain from baseline to 32 to 36 hours (low-dose colchicine 31/74 versus placebo 5/29 (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.05 to 5.64)), with a NNTB of 5 (95% CI 2 to 20). There are no additional harms in terms of adverse events (diarrhoea, nausea or vomiting) with low-dose colchicine compared to placebo (19/74 and 6/29 respectively (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.79)).Based upon data from one trial (126 participants), there is low-quality evidence that there are no additional benefits in terms of the proportion of people achieving 50% or greater decrease in pain from baseline up to 32 to 36 hours with high-dose colchicine compared to low-dose (19/52 and 31/74 respectively (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36). However, there were statistically significantly more adverse events in those who received high-dose colchicine (40/52 versus 19/74 in the low-dose group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.98 to 4.54)), with a NNTH of 2 (95% CI 2 to 3).No trials reported function of the target joint, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life or withdrawals due to adverse events. We identified no studies comparing colchicine to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or other active treatments such as glucocorticoids (by any route). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based upon only two published trials, there is low-quality evidence that low-dose colchicine is likely to be an effective treatment for acute gout. We downgraded the evidence because of a possible risk of selection and reporting biases and imprecision. Both high and low-dose colchicine improve pain when compared to placebo. While there is some uncertainty around the effect estimates, compared with placebo, high-dose but not low-dose colchicine appears to result in a statistically significantly greater number of adverse events. Therefore low-dose colchicine may be the preferred treatment option. There are no trials about the effect of colchicine in populations with comorbidities or in comparison with other commonly used treatments, such as NSAIDs and glucocorticoids.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout: integrating systematic literature review and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e initiative.

We aimed to develop evidence-based multinational recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout. Using a formal voting process, a panel of 78 international rheumatologists developed 10 key clinical questions pertinent to the diagnosis and management of gout. Each question was investigated with a systematic literature review. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and abstracts from 2010-2011 European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology meetings were searched in each review. Relevant studies were independently reviewed by two individuals for data extraction and synthesis and risk of bias assessment. Using this evidence, rheumatologists from 14 countries (Europe, South America and Australasia) developed national recommendations. After rounds of discussion and voting, multinational recommendations were formulated. Each recommendation was graded according to the level of evidence. Agreement and potential impact on clinical practice were assessed. Combining evidence and clinical expertise, 10 recommendations were produced. One recommendation referred to the diagnosis of gout, two referred to cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, six focused on different aspects of the management of gout (including drug treatment and monitoring), and the last recommendation referred to the management of asymptomatic hyperuricaemia. The level of agreement with the recommendations ranged from 8.1 to 9.2 (mean 8.7) on a 1-10 scale, with 10 representing full agreement. Ten recommendations on the diagnosis and management of gout were established. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 14 countries, enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

Identification of the most common problems by patients with ankylosing spondylitis using the international classification of functioning, disability and health.

OBJECTIVE: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) aims to classify functioning and health by a number of categories divided over 3 components: body functions and body structures, participation and activities, and environmental factors. We identified the common health problems of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) based on the ICF from the perspective of the patient. METHODS: During structured interviews with the extended ICF checklist, trained assessors collected data from 111 patients with AS. ICF categories identified by more than 5% of the patients as at least mildly impaired or restricted were selected. Categories identified by less than 5% were removed. Additional impairments/restrictions reported by more than 5% of the patients, after the structured interviews and not yet included in the checklist, were added. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen (72%) out of 165 categories of the extended ICF checklist were identified to be at least mildly impaired or restricted. Within each of the 4 components of the ICF, at least one-third of the categories were impaired or restricted for more than 50% of the patients. Thirty-nine (33%) categories were related to movement and mobility. Within the component "environmental factors" the categories "support of immediate family" and "health professionals" were the most important facilitators, "climate" was the most important barrier. Eight impairments were additionally mentioned as relevant. These were hierarchically lower levels of ICF categories previously included and they were added. CONCLUSION: One hundred twenty-seven ICF categories represent the comprehensive classification of functioning in AS from the patients' perspective. The results underscore the need to address the 4 ICF components when classifying functioning and to emphasize that functioning implies more than physical functioning.