RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the 2016 preliminary gout remission definition and a simplified gout remission definition in a clinical trial of nurse-led gout care. METHODS: Data from a 2-year parallel arm, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial of 517 community-derived people with gout were analyzed. Participants were assigned 1:1 to receive nurse-led care or general practitioner usual care. Remission was defined using the 2016 preliminary gout remission definition and a simplified gout remission definition without patient reported outcomes. Binary logistic regression was used to compare intervention groups. General linear models were used to compare Gout Impact Scale (GIS) scores between those in remission and those not in remission using either definition. RESULTS: Participants in the nurse-led care group were more likely to achieve remission using either definition; at Year 2 the odds ratio was 7.92 [95 % CI 4.86-12.92] using the 2016 preliminary definition and 11.88 [95 % CI 7.49-18.84] using the simplified definition. For all participants, the 2016 preliminary definition was fulfilled by 9.9 % at Year 1 and 28.4 % at Year 2, p < 0.001 and the simplified definition was fulfilled by 17.6 % at Year 1 and 42.7 % at Year 2, p < 0.001. People in remission using either definition had better gout outcomes assessed using the GIS, including greater control over their gout. CONCLUSION: Both definitions discriminated between the intervention groups and showed high construct validity. The simplified definition identified more people as being in gout remission at Year 1 and Year 2. The simplified definition is a feasible and valid option for defining gout remission.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the preferences of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) regarding tapering of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). The aim of this study was to assess the preferences of people with RA in relation to potential treatment- related benefits and risks of bDMARD tapering and the healthcare service-related attributes that affect tapering. METHODS: Participants with RA who had experience of taking a bDMARD completed an online discrete choice experiment. Participants were asked their preferences when given three hypothetical treatment scenarios where varying the frequency of treatment, might alter their chance of adverse effects, of regaining disease control, and of other healthcare service-related effects. Preference weights were estimated using a multinomial logit model. RESULTS: There were 142 complete responses. Reduced dosing frequency of bDMARDs treatment had the largest impact on preference (mean:1.0, 95%CI 0.8-1.2), followed by chance of disease flare (mean:0.7, 95%CI 0.6-0.9). Participants were willing to accept an increased risk of flare between 10.6% (95%CI 3.2-17.9) and 60.6% (95%CI 48.1-72.9) in exchange for benefits associated with tapering bDMARDs. Participants with better quality of life were more likely to choose to remain on current treatment. The predicted uptake of bDMARD tapering was high among people with RA, suggesting bDMARD tapering was a favoured option. CONCLUSION: For individuals with RA, making decisions about tapering bDMARDs involves considering several factors, with the most important determinants identified as dosing frequency and the risk of disease flare. Understanding patient perspectives of bDMARD tapering may enable physicians to make patient-focused shared healthcare decisions.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To investigate (1) the effect of colchicine prophylaxis on gout remission when commencing urate-lowering therapy (ULT), and (2) illness perceptions of people in remission using 2 definitions of gout remission. METHODS: Data from a 12-month double-blind placebo-controlled trial of 200 people with gout commencing allopurinol were analyzed. Participants were randomly assigned to prophylaxis with 0.5 mg daily colchicine or placebo for 6 months, followed by 6 months of additional follow-up. Gout remission was assessed using the 2016 preliminary definition or simplified definition without patient-reported outcomes. Illness perceptions were assessed using a gout-specific version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. RESULTS: In the first 6 months, few participants were in remission according to either the 2016 preliminary definition (3% for colchicine and 4% for placebo) or the simplified definition (7% for colchicine and 12% for placebo). In the second 6 months, after study drug (colchicine or placebo) discontinuation, fewer participants in the colchicine group than in the placebo group were in remission according to the 2016 preliminary definition (4% vs 14%, P = 0.03), and the simplified definition (14% vs 28%, P = 0.02). Participants fulfilling remission using either definition had more favorable perceptions about their gout symptoms and illness concerns, as well as consequences, when using the simplified definition. CONCLUSION: Using either definition, 6 months of colchicine prophylaxis when initiating ULT does not provide an advantage in the fulfillment of gout remission. People fulfilling either definition report fewer symptoms, less concern about their gout, and, when using the simplified definition, are less affected by gout.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify variables that predict gout remission in people with erosive gout receiving urate-lowering therapy. METHODS: We analyzed data from a two-year, double-masked randomized-controlled trial of people with erosive gout, randomized to a serum urate target of <0.20 mmol/L or <0.30 mmol/L using oral urate-lowering therapies. All participants had dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) scans of the feet and ankles at baseline. The proportion of participants achieving gout remission according to the 2016 preliminary gout remission criteria and simplified gout remission criteria (without the patient reported outcomes) was analyzed. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate predictors of gout remission in year 2. RESULTS: The preliminary gout remission criteria were fulfilled in 11 of 97 participants (11%) at year 1 and 21 of 92 participants (23%) at year 2. The simplified criteria were fulfilled in 26 of 97 participants (27%) in year 1 and 40 of 92 participants (44%) in year 2. In multivariable regression models, baseline DECT monosodium urate crystal volume was the only significant independent predictor of gout remission at year 2, using either criteria. Each 1-cm3 increase in the baseline DECT monosodium urate crystal volume decreased the odds of fulfilling the 2016 preliminary gout remission criteria (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.93; P = 0.02) and the simplified gout remission criteria (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41-0.78; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In people with erosive gout on urate-lowering therapy, higher baseline DECT monosodium urate crystal volume is associated with lower odds of gout remission after two years of treatment, defined by either the preliminary gout remission criteria or simplified gout remission criteria.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The minor allele of the common rs2231142 ABCG2 variant predicts inadequate response to allopurinol urate lowering therapy. We hypothesize that additional variants in genes encoding urate transporters and allopurinol-to-oxypurinol metabolic enzymes also predict allopurinol response. METHODS: This study included a subset of participants with gout from the Long-term Allopurinol Safety Study Evaluating Outcomes in Gout Patients, whose whole genome was sequenced (n = 563). Good responders had a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of good (serum urate (SU) <0.36 mmol/l on allopurinol ≤300 mg/day) to poor (SU ≥ 0.36 mmol/l despite allopurinol >300 mg/day) responses over 5-6 timepoints, while inadequate responders had a 1:4 or 1:5 ratio of good to poor responses. Adherence to allopurinol was determined by pill counts, and for a subgroup (n = 303), by plasma oxypurinol >20µmol/l. Using the sequence kernel association test (SKAT) we estimated the combined effect of rare and common variants in urate secretory (ABCC4, ABCC5, ABCG2, SLC17A1, SLC17A3, SLC22A6, SLC22A8) and reuptake genes (SLC2A9, SLC22A11) and in allopurinol-to-oxypurinol metabolic genes (AOX1, MOCOS, XDH) on allopurinol response. RESULTS: There was an association of rare and common variants in the allopurinol-to-oxypurinol gene group (PSKAT-C = 0.019), and in MOCOS, encoding molybdenum cofactor sulphurase, with allopurinol response (PSKAT-C = 0.011). Evidence for genetic association with allopurinol response in the allopurinol-to-oxypurinol gene group (PSKAT-C = 0.002) and MOCOS (PSKAT-C < 0.001) was stronger when adherence to allopurinol therapy was confirmed by plasma oxypurinol. CONCLUSION: We provide evidence for common and rare genetic variation in MOCOS associating with allopurinol response.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to examine the disease, demographic, and imaging features associated with different inflammatory phenotypes of calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease, ie, recurrent acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis, chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis, and crowned dens syndrome (CDS). METHODS: Data from an international cohort (assembled from 25 sites in 7 countries for the development and validation of the 2023 CPPD classification criteria from the American College of Rheumatology/EULAR) that met the criteria were included. Three cross-sectional studies were conducted to determine the phenotypic characteristics of recurrent acute CPP crystal arthritis, chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis, and CDS. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to calculate adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to examine the association between potential risk factors and the inflammatory phenotype. RESULTS: Among the 618 people included (56% female; mean age [standard deviation] 74.0 [11.9] years), 602 (97.4%) had experienced acute CPP crystal arthritis, 332 (53.7%) had recurrent acute arthritis, 158 (25.6%) had persistent inflammatory arthritis, and 45 (7.3%) had had CDS. Recurrent acute CPP crystal arthritis associated with longer disease duration (aOR 2.88 [95% CI 2.00-4.14]). Chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis was associated with acute wrist arthritis (aOR 2.92 [95% CI 1.81-4.73]), metacarpophalangeal joint osteoarthritis (aOR 1.87 [95% CI 1.17-2.97]), and scapho-trapezo-trapezoid (STT) joint osteoarthritis (aOR 1.83 [95% CI 1.15-2.91]), and it was negatively associated with either metabolic or familial risk for CPPD (aOR 0.60 [95% CI 0.37-0.96]). CDS was associated with male sex (aOR 2.35 [95% CI 1.21-4.59]), STT joint osteoarthritis (aOR 2.71 [95% CI 1.22-6.05]), and more joints affected with chondrocalcinosis (aOR 1.46 [95% CI 1.15-1.85]). CONCLUSION: CPPD disease encompasses acute and chronic inflammatory phenotypes, each with specific clinical and imaging features that need to be considered in the diagnostic workup.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The dynamics of monosodium urate (MSU) crystal changes across a range of serum urate concentrations in people with gout are unknown. This study aimed to systematically examine the relationship between serum urate and changes in dual-energy CT (DECT) urate volume in people with gout and stable serum urate concentrations. METHODS: Individual participant data were analysed from three studies of people with gout. The time periods for the analysis were selected to identify study participants with serial DECT scans of both feet over a 12-month epoch of stable urate-lowering therapy and serum urate concentrations. Data from 251 study participants were analysed using a mixed models analysis of covariance approach according to mean serum urate cut-points and mean serum urate bands. RESULTS: For all mean serum urate cut-points assessed (0.24, 0.30, 0.36, 0.42 and 0.48 mmol/L), reductions in DECT urate volumes were observed below the cut-point. Increased DECT urate volumes were observed at or above the 0.48 mmol/L mean serum urate cut-point. Differences in the change in DECT volume were observed for the 0.42 mmol/L cut-point (p=0.0044) and the 0.48 mmol/L cut-point (p<0.0001). Significantly reduced DECT urate volumes were observed for the mean serum urate bands<0.24 mmol/L and 0.24-0.29 mmol/L and increased DECT urate volume was observed for the mean serum urate band≥0.48 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: Over 1 year, MSU crystal dissolution, as measured by DECT, occurs with mean serum urate bands of<0.24 mmol/L and 0.24-0.29 mmol/L while MSU crystal formation occurs with mean serum urate≥0.48 mmol/L.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Gout is one of the most common forms of arthritis worldwide. Gout is particularly prevalent in Aotearoa/New Zealand and is estimated to affect 13.1% of Maori men, 22.9% of Pacific men and 7.4% of New Zealand European men. Effective long-term treatment requires lowering serum urate to <0.36 mmol/L. Allopurinol is the most commonly used urate-lowering medication worldwide. Despite its efficacy and safety, the allopurinol dose escalation treat-to-target serum urate strategy is difficult to implement and there are important inequities in allopurinol prescribing in Aotearoa. The escalation strategy is labour intensive, time consuming and costly for people with gout and the healthcare system. An easy and effective way to dose-escalate allopurinol is required, especially as gout disproportionately affects working-age Maori men and Pacific men, who frequently do not receive optimal care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 12-month non-inferiority randomised controlled trial in people with gout who have a serum urate ≥ 0.36 mmol/l will be undertaken. 380 participants recruited from primary and secondary care will be randomised to one of the two allopurinol dosing strategies: intensive nurse-led treat-to-target serum urate dosing (intensive treat-to-target) or protocol-driven dose escalation based on dose predicted by an allopurinol dosing model (Easy-Allo). The primary endpoint will be the proportion of participants who achieve target serum urate (<0.36 mmol/L) at 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The New Zealand Northern B Health and Disability Ethics Committee approved the study (2022 FULL 13478). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and to participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001279718p.