IDH-mutant myeloid neoplasms are associated with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis and innate immune activation.

ABSTRACT: High prevalence of IDH mutations in seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with myeloid neoplasm, elevated 2-hydroxyglutarate, dysregulated innate immunity, and proinflammatory microenvironment suggests causative association between IDH mutations and seronegative RA. Our findings merit investigation of IDH inhibitors as therapeutics for seronegative IDH-mutated RA.

Female reproductive status and exogenous sex hormone use in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with tocilizumab and csDMARDs.

OBJECTIVES: Sex is well known to influence risk, severity and treatment outcomes of RA, although the underlying causes are uncertain. The aim of this research was to examine whether factors influencing female sex hormones (reproductive status and exogenous sex hormone use) are associated with the efficacy of DMARDs. METHODS: Individual participant data were pooled from five phase 3 clinical trials where RA patients were treated with tocilizumab and/or conventional synthetic DMARDs. The primary outcome was the time to first remission according to the Simplified Disease Activity Index. The relationship between menopausal status or use of exogenous sex hormones and the time of first remission was assessed via Cox proportional analysis. Analysed data included sex, baseline menopausal status (premenopausal, perimenopausal, early postmenopausal and postmenopausal), participant age, body mass index, race, number of previous DMARDs and baseline disease activity. RESULTS: Analysis included 4474 female patients, of whom 2817 (62.9%) were postmenopausal, 202 (4.5%) were early postmenopausal, 1021 (22.8%) were premenopausal and 414 (9.2%) were perimenopausal. Of these, 221 (7.8%), 13 (6.4%), 255 (25%) and 47 (11.4%), respectively, were taking exogenous sex hormones. In the pooled analysis, perimenopausal status was associated with reduced remission compared with premenopausal status [adjusted HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.61, 0.99)]. Sex hormone use was associated with significantly higher remission [adjusted HR 1.20 (95% CI 1.01, 1.43)]. CONCLUSION: Perimenopausal women were less likely to achieve remission compared with premenopausal RA patients. The use of exogenous sex hormones appeared to be associated with more frequent remission in female RA patients, particularly those who were perimenopausal and early postmenopausal, although further research is required to confirm and identify the drivers for this observation and how it interacts with menopausal status.

Colchicine for acute gout.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated Cochrane Review, first published in 2006 and updated in 2014. 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 update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of colchicine for the treatment of acute gout. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP registries to 28 August 2020. We did not impose any date or language restrictions in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) evaluating colchicine therapy compared with another therapy (placebo or active) in acute gout; low-dose colchicine at clinically relevant doses compared with placebo was the primary comparison. The major outcomes were pain, participant global assessment of treatment success (proportion with 50% or greater decrease in pain from baseline up to 32 to 36 hours), reduction of inflammation, function of target joint, serious adverse events, total adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane in this review update. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials (803 randomised participants), including two new trials, in this updated review. One three-arm trial compared high-dose colchicine (52 participants), low-dose colchicine (74 participants) and placebo (59 participants); one trial compared high-dose colchicine with placebo (43 participants); one trial compared low-dose colchicine with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (399 participants); and one trial compared low-dose colchicine with Chuanhu anti-gout mixture (traditional Chinese Medicine compound) (176 participants). We did not identify any trials comparing colchicine to glucocorticoids (by any route). The mean age of participants ranged from 51.2 to 70 years, and trial duration from 48 hours to 12 weeks. Two trials were at low risk of bias, one was possibly susceptible to selection bias (random sequence generation), reporting bias and other bias, and one open-label trial was at high risk of performance and detection bias. For the primary comparison, low-quality evidence from one trial (103 participants, downgraded for imprecision and bias) suggests low-dose colchicine may improve treatment outcome compared to placebo with little or no increased risk of adverse events. The number of people who reported treatment success (50% or greater pain reduction) at 32 to 36 hours was slightly larger with low-dose colchicine (418 per 1000) compared with placebo (172 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 5.64; absolute improvement 25% more reported success (7% more to 42% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important and unimportant benefit); relative change of 143% more people reported treatment success (5% more to 464% more). The incidence of total adverse events was 364 per 1000 with low-dose colchicine compared with 276 per 1000 with placebo: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.56; absolute difference 9% more events with low-dose colchicine (9% fewer to 43% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important effect and no effect); relative change of 32% more events (32% fewer to 156% more). No participants withdrew due to adverse events or reported any serious adverse events. Pain, inflammation and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision and bias) from two trials (124 participants) suggests that high-dose colchicine compared to placebo may improve symptoms, but with increased risk of harms. More participants reported treatment success at 32 to 36 hours with high-dose colchicine (518 per 1000) compared with placebo (240 per 1000): RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.65, absolute improvement 28% (8% more to 46% more); more also had reduced inflammation at this time point with high-dose colchicine (504 per 1000) compared with placebo (48 per 1000): RR 10.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 74.38; absolute improvement 45% greater (22% greater to 68% greater); but more adverse events were reported with high-dose colchicine (829 per 1000 compared with 260 per 1000): RR 3.21, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.11, absolute difference 57% (26% more to 74% more). Pain and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence from a single trial comparing high-dose to low-dose colchicine indicates there may be little or no difference in benefit in terms of treatment success at 32 to 36 hours but more adverse events associated with the higher dose. Similarly, low-quality evidence from a single trial indicates there may also be little or no benefit of low-dose colchicine over NSAIDs in terms of treatment success and pain reduction at seven days, with a similar number of adverse events reported at four weeks follow-up. Reduction of inflammation, function of target joint and withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported in either of these trials, and pain was not reported in the high-dose versus low-dose colchicine trial. We were unable to estimate the risk of serious adverse events for most comparisons as there were few events reported in the trials. One trial (399 participants) reported three serious adverse (one in a participant receiving low-dose colchicine and two in participants receiving NSAIDs), due to reasons unrelated to the trial (low-quality evidence downgraded for bias and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence that low-dose colchicine may be an effective treatment for acute gout when compared to placebo and low-quality evidence that its benefits may be similar to NSAIDs. We downgraded the evidence for bias and imprecision. While both high- and low-dose colchicine improve pain when compared to placebo, low-quality evidence suggests that high-dose (but not low-dose) colchicine may increase the number of adverse events compared to placebo, while low-quality evidence indicates that the number of adverse events may be similar with low-dose colchicine and NSAIDs. Further trials comparing colchicine to placebo or other treatment will likely have an important impact on our confidence in the effect estimates and may change the conclusions of this review. There are no trials reporting the effect of colchicine in populations with comorbidities or in comparison with other commonly used treatments, such as glucocorticoids.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout.

BACKGROUND: Gout is an inflammatory arthritis resulting from the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in and around joints. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat acute gout. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (including cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs)) for acute gout. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for studies to 28 August 2020. We applied no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing NSAIDs with placebo or another therapy for acute gout. Major outcomes were pain, inflammation, function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life, withdrawals due to adverse events, and total adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included in this update 28 trials (3406 participants), including 5 new trials. One trial (30 participants) compared NSAIDs to placebo, 6 (1244 participants) compared non-selective NSAIDs to selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs), 5 (712 participants) compared NSAIDs to glucocorticoids, 13 compared one NSAID to another NSAID (633 participants), and single trials compared NSAIDs to rilonacept (225 participants), acupuncture (163 participants), and colchicine (399 participants). Most trials were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases. We report numerical data for the primary comparison NSAIDs versus placebo and brief results for the two comparisons - NSAIDs versus COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs versus glucocorticoids. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) from 1 trial (30 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to placebo. More participants (11/15) may have a 50% reduction in pain at 24 hours with NSAIDs than with placebo (4/15) (risk ratio (RR) 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 6.7), with absolute improvement of 47% (3.5% more to 152.5% more). NSAIDs may have little to no effect on inflammation (swelling) after four days (13/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 12/15 participants taking placebo; RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), with absolute improvement of 6.4% (16.8% fewer to 39.2% more). There may be little to no difference in function (4-point scale; 1 = complete resolution) at 24 hours (4/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 1/15 participants taking placebo; RR 4.0, 95% CI 0.5 to 31.7), with absolute improvement of 20% (3.3% fewer to 204.9% more). NSAIDs may result in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (0 events in both groups) or in total adverse events; two adverse events (nausea and polyuria) were reported in the placebo group (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.0, 3.8), with absolute difference of 10.7% more (13.2% fewer to 38% more). Treatment success and health-related quality of life were not measured. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) from 6 trials (1244 participants) shows non-selective NSAIDs compared to selective COX-2 inhibitors (COXIBs). Non-selective NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.14 higher), swelling (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.22 higher), treatment success (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 lower to 0.2 higher), or quality of life (MD -0.2, 95% CI -6.7 to 6.3) compared to COXIBs. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests no difference in function (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.25) between groups. Non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.1) and total adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) based on 5 trials (712 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids. NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (MD 0.1, 95% CI -2.7 to 3.0), inflammation (MD 0.3, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.6), function (MD -0.2, 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8), or treatment success (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). There was no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events with NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids (RR 2.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 14.2). There was a decrease in total adverse events with glucocorticoids compared to NSAIDs (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.5). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from 1 placebo-controlled trial suggests that NSAIDs may improve pain at 24 hours and may have little to no effect on function, inflammation, or adverse events for treatment of acute gout. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that COXIBs and non-selective NSAIDs are probably equally beneficial with regards to improvement in pain, function, inflammation, and treatment success, although non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic glucocorticoids and NSAIDs probably are equally beneficial in terms of pain relief, improvement in function, and treatment success. Withdrawals due to adverse events were also similar between groups, but NSAIDs probably result in more total adverse events. Low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in inflammation between groups. Only low-certainty evidence was available for the comparisons NSAID versus rilonacept and NSAID versus acupuncture from single trials, or one NSAID versus another NSAID, which also included many NSAIDs that are no longer in clinical use. Although these data were insufficient to support firm conclusions, they do not conflict with clinical guideline recommendations based upon evidence from observational studies, findings for other inflammatory arthritis, and expert consensus, all of which support the use of NSAIDs for acute gout.

Repeat serological testing for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody after commencement of therapy is not helpful in patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis.

AIM: To Investigate the prevalence of seroconversion to ACPA after commencement of triple disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treat-to-target therapy. BACKGROUND: Anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF) define 'seropositive' rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Both predict unfavourable disease course, development of extra-articular features and treatment outcomes. We investigated the prevalence of seroconversion to ACPA after commencement of triple disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treat-to-target therapy. METHODS: DMARD-naïve patients with RA according to the 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria and disease duration of <96 weeks were enrolled. RF and ACPA levels were recorded at baseline and sequentially during triple DMARD therapy. RESULTS: A total of 368 patients were followed for a median of 272 weeks. Of 154 patients seronegative for ACPA at recruitment, 10 (6.5%) seroconverted at some point. Nine of these were positive for RF at baseline and baseline RF titre was predictive of seroconversion. Four (2.6%) patients remained seropositive. No patients seroconverted from negative to positive for both RF and ACPA. Median time to seroconversion for ACPA was 29 months. CONCLUSION: Persistent seroconversion of ACPA from negative to positive after diagnosis in patients with RA is uncommon. ACPA and RF double negative patients are highly unlikely to ever develop ACPA positivity with a risk <1%. It is therefore unlikely to be helpful or cost effective to perform serial ACPA measurements in patients with seronegative RA after commencement of a treat-to-target strategy.

The novel cytokine Metrnl/IL-41 is elevated in Psoriatic Arthritis synovium and inducible from both entheseal and synovial fibroblasts.

Meteorin-like(IL-41), is a novel cytokine that is thought to be immunoregulatory and is highly expressed in psoriatic skin. We investigated IL-41 protein expression in synovial tissue in RA(Rheumatoid Arthritis), PsA(Psoriatic Arthritis) and OA(Osteoarthritis) patients and evaluated IL-41 production from healthy enthesis samples, as the enthesis represent the primary inflammatory site in PsA. IL-41 was measured in synovial fluid from PsA, RA and OA patients. Synovial biopsies were stained for IL-41 by immunohistochemistry. IL-41 was highly expressed in the synovial fluid and synovial tissue of PsA patients (median = 7722 pg/ml) when compared to OA patients (median = 5044 pg/ml). We found that entheseal stromal cells were the dominant producer of IL-41 from the enthesis. Moreover, stromal derived IL-41, could be further induced by IL-17A/F and TNF. In conclusion, IL-41 is expressed in PsA synovium and is present and inducible at the enthesis. Its functional effect in psoriatic inflammation remains to be fully elucidated.

CD40L-Dependent Pathway Is Active at Various Stages of Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Progression.

The inflammatory CD40-CD40L pathway is implicated in various autoimmune diseases, but the activity status of this pathway in various stages of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) progression is unknown. In this study, we used gene signatures of CD40L stimulation derived from human immature dendritic cells and naive B cells to assess the expression of CD40-downstream genes in synovial tissues from anti-citrullinated protein Ab-positive arthralgia, undifferentiated arthritis (UA), early RA, and established RA cohorts in comparison with healthy donors. Interestingly, the expression of CD40LG and active full-length CD40 was increased in the disease tissues, whereas that of a dominant-negative CD40 isoform was decreased. Gene set variation analysis revealed that CD40L-responsive genes in immature dendritic cells and naive B cells were significantly enriched in synovial tissues from UA, early RA, and established RA patients. Additionally, CD40L-induced naive B cell genes were also significantly enriched in synovial tissues from arthralgia patients. In our efforts to characterize downstream mediators of CD40L signaling, we have identified GPR120 and KDM6B as novel components of the pathway. In conclusion, our data suggest that therapeutic CD40-CD40L blocking agents may prove efficacious not only in early and established RA, but also in inhibiting the progression of the disease from arthralgia or UA to RA.

Factors associated with medication adherence in a longitudinal study of rheumatoid arthritis patients.

BACKGROUND: Identification of key determinants of medication adherence may assist with designing interventions to improve this important parameter. The aim of the study was to determine the rate and predictors of self-reported medication adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over one-year follow-up. METHODS: Socio-demographic, disease, therapy and patient-related factors were obtained from a longitudinal observational cohort of RA patients between May 2014 and June 2016. Medication adherence was measured using self-reported Compliance Questionnaire for Rheumatology (CQR) at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Mixed-effects modelling was used to investigate the relationship between adherence and potential predictors. RESULT: Of 185 patients invited, 110 were included in the study. The median level of adherence was 71%-74% during the study period. Around 27%-30% of patients achieved > 80% adherence, while roughly one-fifth reported a CQR score within the lower quartile (CQR < 63%). After adjustment for potential confounders, increased age (ß = 0.19, P = 0.010), higher self-efficacy (ß = 0.89, P = 0.039) and higher medication necessity belief (ß = 1.12, P < 0.0001) were associated with better self-reported adherence. CONCLUSION: We found a moderate level of self-reported adherence over time and significant association with age, self-efficacy and medication necessity belief. The modifiable predictors of adherence found in this study can be used as a potential target for adherence-improving interventions.

Adherence to combination DMARD therapy and treatment outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: a longitudinal study of new and existing DMARD users.

Medication adherence is believed to be a major contributor to treatment outcomes yet studies quantifying this relationship as rare in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To determine the association of adherence to DMARD therapy with treatment outcomes among new and existing DMARD users over 2 years. Relevant clinical parameters were obtained from a longitudinal cohort of RA patients, most of who were treated with combination therapy. Patients were classified as adherent if the proportion of days covered for each DMARD was ≥80%. Outcome measures were the change in the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28), simplified disease activity index (SDAI), modified health assessment questionnaires (mHAQ) and proportion of patients who achieved response criteria. An inverse propensity-score weighting method was used to estimate the association of adherence with each outcome. Of 194 patients invited, a total of 111 patients (new = 45 and existing = 66 DMARD users) met study eligibility. DMARD-naive patients demonstrated relatively higher rates of adherence compared to existing users. After controlling for confounding variables, adherence was significantly associated with reduction in DAS28 (ß = -1.5, 95% CI of ß = - 2.17 to -0.83, p < 0.0001), SDAI (ß = -9.44, 95% CI of ß = -15.53 to -3.35, p = 0.002) and mHAQ (ß = -0.269, 95% CI of ß, -0.462 to -0.077, p = 0.017) over 2 years among new patients and adherent patients were more likely to achieve most response criteria compared to non-adherent patients. Such associations were not replicated among existing DMARD users. Adherence to combination DMARD therapy was associated with improvements in disease activity and functional outcomes in the first 2 years of therapy.

A Treat-to-Target Strategy Preserves Work Capacity in a Rheumatoid Arthritis Inception Cohort Treated With Combination Conventional DMARD Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Quantification of work disability in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving conventional DMARDs according to a treat-to-target strategy. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of RA patients who received combination conventional DMARDs, escalated to achieve DAS28(ESR) remission and completed an annual work and arthritis questionnaire. Random effect mixed modeling was used to assess associations between average hours worked per week (HWPW), and baseline prognostic factors. HWPW were compared with matched population averages. Cox proportional hazards modeling was employed to evaluate associations between permanent loss of employment and treatment response, disease and demographic factors. RESULTS: Work data from 135 patients working at baseline and 137 working at any point followed for up to 14 years (range 1-14) were available for analysis. The mean age was 45 years, 70% were female, and 70% and 68% were seropositive for rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), respectively. Men worked more hours than women; there was a highly significant association between working hours lost and increasing age (0.28 hours, P = 0.04) and female gender (11.92 hours, P < 0.001). HWPW were maintained over the study time comparable to the general population (loss of 0.78 vs. 0.24 HWPW). EULAR good responders at 6 months were more likely to be working at 10 years compared to those with moderate/no response. Permanent loss of employment and baseline age were strongly associated for anti-CCP positive participants (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Treat-to-target combination conventional DMARD therapy maintains work capacity, particularly in good responders, comparable to the general population. Improving treatment response in moderate/no responders early in disease may increase work retention.

Fish oil in recent onset rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial within algorithm-based drug use.

BACKGROUND: The effects of fish oil (FO) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have not been examined in the context of contemporary treatment of early RA. This study examined the effects of high versus low dose FO in early RA employing a 'treat-to-target' protocol of combination disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: Patients with RA <12 months' duration and who were DMARD-naïve were enrolled and randomised 2:1 to FO at a high dose or low dose (for masking). These groups, designated FO and control, were given 5.5 or 0.4 g/day, respectively, of the omega-3 fats, eicosapentaenoic acid + docosahexaenoic acid. All patients received methotrexate (MTX), sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine, and DMARD doses were adjusted according to an algorithm taking disease activity and toxicity into account. DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate, modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) and remission were assessed three monthly. The primary outcome measure was failure of triple DMARD therapy. RESULTS: In the FO group, failure of triple DMARD therapy was lower (HR=0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.63; p=0.002) unadjusted and 0.24 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.54; p=0.0006) following adjustment for smoking history, shared epitope and baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. The rate of first American College of Rheumatology (ACR) remission was significantly greater in the FO compared with the control group (HRs=2.17 (95% CI 1.07 to 4.42; p=0.03) unadjusted and 2.09 (95% CI 1.02 to 4.30; p=0.04) adjusted). There were no differences between groups in MTX dose, DAS28 or mHAQ scores, or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: FO was associated with benefits additional to those achieved by combination 'treat-to-target' DMARDs with similar MTX use. These included reduced triple DMARD failure and a higher rate of ACR remission.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for treatment of acute gout.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) associated with better outcomes than cyclooxygenase inhibitors, glucocorticoids, IL-1 inhibitors or placebo in the treatment of acute gout? BOTTOM LINE: NSAIDs are not significantly associated with a difference in pain reduction compared with cyclooxygenase inhibitors and glucocorticoids for treating acute gout. However, NSAIDs are associated with higher rates of adverse events and higher rates of withdrawal due to adverse events compared with cyclooxygenase inhibitors.

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.

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.

Interleukin-1 inhibitors for acute gout.

BACKGROUND: Acute gout flares cause significant pain and disability and it is important to provide quick and effective pain relief. Traditional options for managing acute flares include colchicine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and glucocorticoids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interleukin-1 inhibitors (anakinra, canakinumab, rilonacept) in acute gout. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE on 19 June 2013. We applied no date or language restrictions. We performed a handsearch of the abstracts from the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (2009 to 2012) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) (2009 to 2011) conferences and of the references of all included trials. We also screened the Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization and Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the US National Institutes of Health. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised clinical trials (controlled clinical trials (CCTs)) assessing an interleukin-1 inhibitor (anakinra, canakinumab or rilonacept) against placebo or another active treatment (colchicine, paracetamol, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids (systemic or intra-articular), adrenocorticotropin hormone, a different interleukin-1 blocking agent or a combination of any of the above) in adults with acute gout. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. If appropriate, we pooled data in a meta-analysis. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (806 participants) in the review. The studies had an unclear risk of selection bias and low risk of performance and attrition biases. One study each had an unclear risk of detection and selection bias.Three studies (654 participants) compared subcutaneous canakinumab compared with intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg in the treatment of acute gout flares of no more than five days' duration. Doses of canakinumab were varied (10 to 150 mg), but most people (255/368) were treated with canakinumab 150 mg. None of the studies provided data on participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that canakinumab 150 mg was probably superior to triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg in terms of pain relief, resolution of joint swelling and in achieving a good treatment response at 72 hours following treatment, but was probably associated with an increased risk of adverse events.Mean pain (0- to 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS), where 0 mm was no pain) was 36 mm after triamcinolone acetonide treatment; pain was further reduced by a mean of 11 mm with canakinumab treatment (mean difference (MD) -10.6 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.2 to -5.9). Forty-four per cent of participants treated with canakinumab had resolution of joint swelling at 72 hours compared with 32% of participants treated with triamcinolone (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.74, number needed to treat for an addition beneficial outcome (NNTB) 9); 65% of participants treated with canakinumab assessed their response to treatment as good or excellent compare with 47% of participants treated with triamcinolone acetonide (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.61, NNTB 6). Function or health-related quality of life were not measured. In both groups, 0.7% of participants withdrew from treatment (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.2 to 7.2); there was one death and one alteration of laboratory results in each of the treatment groups. Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving canakinumab (61%) compared with triamcinolone acetonide (51%; RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4, number needed to treat for an addition harmful outcome (NNTH) 10).Low-quality evidence from one study (152 participants with an acute gout flare of no more than 48 hours' duration and affecting fewer than four joints) comparing rilonacept 320 mg with indomethacin (50 mg three times a day for three days followed by 25 mg three times a day for up to nine days) indicated that indomethacin may improve pain more than rilonacept at 24 to 72 hours, and there may be no evidence of a difference in withdrawal rates or adverse events. The mean change (improvement) in pain from baseline with indomethacin was 4.3 points (measured on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale, where 0 was no pain); pain was improved by a mean of only 2.5 points with rilonacept (MD 2.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.75, 25% less improvement in absolute pain with rilonacept). Inflammation, function health-related quality of life and participant global assessment of treatment success were not measured. Rates of study withdrawals due to adverse events were low in both groups: 1/75 (1%) participants in the rilonacept group compared with 2/76 (3%) participants in the indomethacin group (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.5). Adverse events were reported in 27/75 (36%) participants in the rilonacept group and 23/76 (30%) in the indomethacin group (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.9). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence indicated that compared with a single suboptimal 40-mg dose of intramuscular injection of triamcinolone acetonide, a single subcutaneous dose of 150 mg of canakinumab probably results in better pain relief, joint swelling and participant-assessed global assessment of treatment response in people with an acute gout flare but is probably associated with an increased risk of adverse events. The cost of canakinumab is over 5000 times higher than triamcinolone acetonide; however, there are no data on the cost-effectiveness of this approach. We found no studies comparing canakinumab with more commonly used first-line therapies for acute gout flares such as NSAIDs or colchicine. Low-quality evidence indicated that compared with maximum doses of indomethacin (50 mg three times a day), 320 mg of rilonacept may provide less pain relief with a similar rate of adverse events.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout.

BACKGROUND: Gout is an inflammatory arthritis that is characterised by the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in synovial fluid and other tissues. The natural history of articular gout is generally characterised by three periods: asymptomatic hyperuricaemia, episodes of acute gout and chronic gouty arthritis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) including selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs) are commonly used to treat acute gout. Published guidelines recommend their use to treat acute attacks, using maximum recommended doses for a short time. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefit and safety of NSAIDs (including COXIBs) for acute gout. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies to 7 October 2013, the 2010 and 2011 ACR and EULAR abstracts and performed a handsearch of reference lists of articles. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trial register and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials that compared NSAIDs with placebo or another therapy (including non-pharmacological therapies) for acute gout. Major outcomes were pain (proportion with 50% or more reduction in pain or mean pain when the dichotomous outcome was unavailable), inflammation (e.g. measured by joint swelling/erythema/tenderness), function of target joint, participant's global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life, withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 trials (2200 participants).One trial (30 participants) of low-quality evidence compared an NSAID (tenoxicam) with placebo. It found that significantly more participants had more than 50% reduction in pain after 24 hours (11/15 participants) compared with those taking placebo (4/15 participants) (risk ratio (RR) 2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 6.72). A similar outcome was seen for more than 50% improvement in joint swelling after 24 hours (5/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 2/15 participants taking placebo; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.57 to 10.93). The trial did not measure function, participant global assessment of treatment success and health-related quality of life. There were no adverse events reported with the use of tenoxicam; two adverse events (nausea and polypuria) were reported in the placebo group. No between-group differences in outcome were observed after four days.Moderate-quality evidence based upon four trials (974 participants) indicated that NSAIDs and COXIBs produced similar benefits in terms of pain, swelling and global improvement, but COXIBs were associated with fewer adverse events. Pain reduction was 1.9 points on a 0- to 10-point scale with COXIBs (0 was no pain) while pain reduction with NSAIDs was 0.03 points lower or better (mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.13). Joint swelling in the COXIB group was 1.64 points on a 0- to 3-point scale (0 is no swelling) and 0.13 points higher with NSAIDs (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.34). Function was not reported. Participant-reported global assessment was 1.56 points on a 0- to 4-point scale with COXIBs (0 was the best score) and was 0.04 points higher with NSAIDs (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.20). Health-related quality of life assessed using the 36-item Short Form showed no evidence of a statistically significant between-group difference (MD 0.49, 95% CI -1.61 to 2.60 for the physical component). There were significantly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events in participants treated with COXIBs (3%) compared with NSAIDs (8%) (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.28). There was a significantly lower number of total adverse events in participants treated with COXIBs (38%) compared with NSAIDs (60%) (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86).There was moderate-quality evidence based on two trials (210 participants) that oral glucocorticoids did not differ in pain reduction, function or adverse events when compared with NSAIDs. Pain reduction was 9.5 on a 0- to 100-point scale with glucocorticoids, pain reduction with NSAIDs was 1.74 higher or worse (MD 1.74, 95% CI -1.44 to 4.92). The trials did not assess inflammation. Function measured as walking disability was 17.4 points on a 0- to 100-point scale with glucocorticoids, function with NSAIDs was 0.1 lower or better (MD -0.10, 95% CI -4.72 to 4.52). The trials did not measure participant-reported global assessment and health-related quality of life. There were no withdrawals due to adverse events. There was no evidence of a difference in total number of adverse events with glucocorticoids (31%) versus NSAIDs (49%) (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.28). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence supported the use of NSAIDs in the treatment of acute gout. One placebo-controlled trial provided evidence of benefit at 24 hours and little or no harm. We downgraded the evidence due to potential selection and reporting biases, and imprecision. While these data were insufficient to draw firm conclusions, they did not conflict with clinical guideline recommendations based upon evidence from observational studies, other inflammatory arthritis and expert consensus, which support the use of NSAIDs in acute gout.Moderate-quality evidence suggested that selective COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs are probably equally beneficial although COX-2 inhibitors are likely to be associated with significantly fewer total and gastrointestinal adverse events. We downgraded the evidence due to an unclear risk of selection and reporting biases. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that systemic glucocorticoids and NSAIDs were also equally beneficial in terms of pain relief. There were no withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events were similar between groups. We downgraded the evidence due to unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. There was low-quality evidence that there was no difference in function. We downgraded the quality due to unclear risk of selection bias and imprecision.

Treatment of asymptomatic hyperuricemia for the prevention of gouty arthritis, renal disease, and cardiovascular events: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review available literature on treatment of hyperuricemia (HU) as a measure of preventing gouty arthritis, renal disease, or cardiovascular events in asymptomatic patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, clinical trials registries of the World Health Organization and the US National Institutes of Health, and abstracts from American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism meetings, for interventional studies involving adults with no history of gouty arthritis, who were treated for HU. Outcomes of interest included gouty arthritis, renal disease (i.e., renal insufficiency, urate nephropathy, nephrolithiasis), and cardiovascular events (i.e., myocardial infarction, heart failure, ischemic stroke). RESULTS: A total of 3 studies met the inclusion criteria, 2 studies assessing the prevention of renal disease and 1 study evaluating the potential for delaying progression of preexisting renal disease. In hyperuricemic patients without renal disease, treatment resulted in increased estimated glomerular filtration rate. In hyperuricemic patients with preexisting renal disease, treatment resulted in no significant elevation of serum creatinine over a 1-year followup. However, differences in renal function between the treatment and no-treatment groups were not statistically significant in any of the identified studies. CONCLUSION: Very limited data are available on the treatment of HU in asymptomatic patients. There is currently insufficient empiric evidence to suggest that lowering serum uric acid level in asymptomatic patients with HU can prevent gouty arthritis, renal disease, or cardiovascular events.

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.

Active foot synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: applying clinical criteria for disease activity and remission may result in underestimation of foot joint involvement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether application of criteria for remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may result in underestimation of foot joint involvement among patients in a clinic setting. METHODS: RA patients (n = 123) were assessed at baseline and 6 months after commencement of a response-driven combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) protocol. Remission was assessed using disease activity measures (the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR], Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI], and Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) as well as Boolean-based criteria for remission (the 1981 American College of Rheumatology [ACR] preliminary criteria and the 2011 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism [EULAR] provisional criteria). The prevalence of foot synovitis and the mean swollen/tender foot joint count in RA patients meeting any of these remission criteria were estimated by hurdle (mixed distribution) regression. RESULTS: In patients who received 6 months of combination DMARD treatment, application of the 1981 ACR criteria and the newly proposed 2011 ACR/EULAR criteria, each utilizing full joint counts (which includes assessment of the feet), classified the least number of patients as being in remission (8-10%), and evidence of foot synovitis was minimal among these patients. In contrast, ongoing foot synovitis was present in a substantial proportion of patients (>20%) meeting the 28-joint count criteria for remission, including the DAS28-ESR, SDAI, CDAI, and 2011 ACR/EULAR criteria (clinical practice setting or clinical trials). Furthermore, applying the 2011 ACR/EULAR composite remission criterion of a SDAI score ≤3.3 to define remission did not adequately capture the resolution of foot synovitis (i.e., residual foot involvement was still detected in a substantial proportion of patients classified as being in remission by this definition). CONCLUSION: Although the DAS28-ESR, CDAI, and SDAI have been validated for assessment of remission in RA, this study shows that the performance of these 3 disease activity measures, which do not provide a direct assessment of the foot, in detecting foot synovitis is poor, in contrast to that of the 1981 ACR and 2011 ACR/EULAR remission criteria utilizing full joint counts. Thus, patients may be at risk of ongoing damage if treatment decisions are made solely on the basis of criteria that omit foot joint assessment.

Intra-articular glucocorticoids for acute gout.

BACKGROUND: Although intra-articular glucocorticoids are a commonly used intervention in the treatment of acute gout, there is little evidence to support their safety and efficacy in this setting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intra-articular glucocorticoids in the treatment of acute gout. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE for studies to 16th October 2012. We also searched the 2010 to 2011 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) abstracts and performed a handsearch of the reference lists of articles considered for inclusion. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that used quasi-randomisation methods to allocate participants to treatment and compared intra-articular glucocorticoids to another therapy (active or placebo) in adults with acute gout. Outcomes selected for inclusion were pain, the proportion of participant withdrawals due to adverse events, inflammation, function, patient global assessment of treatment success, quality of life and proportion of particpants with serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion and planned to extract the data and perform a risk of bias assessment. MAIN RESULTS: No trials were identified that evaluated the efficacy and safety of intra-articular glucocorticoids for acute gout. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is presently no evidence from randomised trials to support the use of intra-articular glucocorticoid treatment in acute gout. Evidence suggests intra-articular glucocorticoids may be a safe and effective treatment in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. These results may be generalisable to people with acute gout, and the treatment may be especially useful in people when non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or colchicine are contraindicated.