Recent advances in gout drugs.

Gout is an autoinflammatory disease caused by the deposition of urate crystals. As the most common inflammatory arthritis, gout has a high incidence and can induce various severe complications. At present, there is no effective cure method in the world. With the deepening of medical research, gout treatment drugs continue to progress. In this review, we provide a landscape view of the current state of the research on gout treatment drugs, including the research progress of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs, drugs that promote uric acid excretion, and drugs that inhibit uric acid production. We mainly emphasize the understanding of gout as an auto-inflammatory disease and the discovery strategy of related gout drugs to provide a systematic and theoretical basis for the new exploration of gout drug discovery.

Pharmacologic Management of Gout in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease and Heart Failure.

Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis and is often comorbid with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Hyperuricemia and gout are also independent risk factors for cardiovascular events, worsening heart failure (HF), and death. The recommended treatment modalities for gout have important implications for patients with CVD because of varying degrees of cardiovascular and HF benefit and risk. Therefore, it is critical to both manage hyperuricemia with urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and treat acute gout flares while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular events. In this review, the evidence for the safety of pharmacologic treatment of acute and chronic gout in patients with CVD and/or HF is reviewed. In patients with CVD or HF who present with an acute gout flare, colchicine is considered safe and potentially reduces the risk of myocardial infarction. If patients cannot tolerate colchicine, short durations of low-dose glucocorticoids are efficacious and may be safe. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be avoided in patients with CVD or HF. The use of canakinumab and anakinra for acute gout flares is limited by the high cost, risk of serious infection, and relatively modest clinical benefit. For long-term ULT, allopurinol, and alternatively probenecid, should be considered first-line treatments in patients with CVD or HF given their safety and potential for reducing cardiovascular outcomes. An increased risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization limit the use of febuxostat and pegloticase as ULT in this population. Ultimately, the selection of agents used for acute gout management and long-term ULT should be individualized according to patient and agent cardiovascular risk factors.

Treating gout in kidney transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To review the etiology, treatment, and preventive strategies of hyperuricemia and gout in kidney transplant recipients. DATA SOURCES: Primary literature was obtained via Medline (1966-June 2003). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies evaluating treatment and prevention of hyperuricemia and gout in kidney transplantation were considered for evaluation. English-language studies were selected for inclusion. DATA SYNTHESIS: Approximately 14,000 kidney transplantations were performed in the United States in 2003, and of those transplant recipients, nearly 13% will experience a new onset of gout. The prevalence of hyperuricemia is even greater. There are several mechanisms by which hyperuricemia and gout develop in kidney transplant recipients. Medication-induced hyperuricemia and renal dysfunction are 2 of the more common mechanisms. Prophylactic and treatment options include allopurinol, colchicine, corticosteroids, and, if absolutely necessary, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. CONCLUSION: It is generally recommended to decide whether the risks of prophylactic therapy and treatment outweigh the benefits. Often, the risk of adverse events associated with agents to treat these ailments tends to outweigh the benefits; therefore, treatment is usually reserved for symptomatic episodes of acute gout. Practitioners must also decide if changes in immunosuppressive regimens may be of benefit on a patient-by-patient basis.