New classification criteria for gout: A framework for progress

Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Department of Rheumatology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Clinical Epidemiology Research & Training Unit, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA, Division of Rheumatology, University of Pennsylvania and VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA and Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) (Impact Factor: 4.48). 04/2013; 52(10). DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket154
Source: PubMed


The definitive classification or diagnosis of gout normally relies upon the identification of MSU crystals in SF or from tophi. Where microscopic examination of SF is not available or is impractical, the best approach may differ depending upon the context. For many types of research, clinical classification criteria are necessary. The increasing prevalence of gout, advances in therapeutics and the development of international research collaborations to understand the impact, mechanisms and optimal treatment of this condition emphasize the need for accurate and uniform classification criteria for gout. Five clinical classification criteria for gout currently exist. However, none of the currently available criteria has been adequately validated. An international project is currently under way to develop new validated gout classification criteria. These criteria will be an essential step forward to advance the research agenda in the modern era of gout management.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An explosion of new agents for chronic and acute gout has highlighted problems with standardized and relevant outcomes for clinical trials and observational studies. Some progress has been made through the OMERACT process, identifying important domains for chronic and acute gout settings and instruments for measuring many of those domains. However, important deficiencies remain. In particular, patient involvement has been relatively limited and probably suggests that not all concerns of patients are captured through the existing OMERACT domains. It is suggested that the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability be used to guide further work in this area. There are early indications of a valid composite measure of disease activity that might be useful in defining disease states such as remission, low disease activity or patient acceptable state. More work needs to be done on how to best use flares as indicators of outcome in chronic gout and how to measure disability during gout flares. Finally, a way to show that serum urate is a good surrogate for relevant and patient-centred outcomes needs to be identified. It seems obvious in clinical practice but is yet to be clearly demonstrated.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2013 · Indian Journal of Rheumatology
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Although there has been major progress in gout imaging, no gout classification criteria currently include advanced imaging techniques. Objective To examine the usefulness of imaging modalities in the classification of gout when compared to monosodium urate (MSU) crystal confirmation as the gold standard, in order to inform development of new gout classification criteria. Methods We systematically reviewed the published literature concerning the diagnostic performance of plain film radiography, MRI, ultrasound (US), conventional CT and dual energy CT (DECT). Only studies with MSU crystal confirmation as the gold standard were included. When more than one study examined the same imaging feature, the data were pooled and summary test characteristics were calculated. Results 11 studies (9 manuscripts and 2 meeting abstracts) satisfied the inclusion criteria. All were set in secondary care, with mean gout disease duration of at least 7 years. Three features were examined in more than one study: the double contour sign (DCS) on US, tophus on US, and MSU crystal deposition on DECT. The pooled (95% CI) sensitivity and specificity of US DCS were 0.83 (0.72 to 0.91) and 0.76 (0.68 to 0.83), respectively; of US tophus, were 0.65 (0.34 to 0.87) and 0.80 (0.38 to 0.96), respectively; and of DECT, were 0.87 (0.79 to 0.93) and 0.84 (0.75 to 0.90), respectively. Conclusions US and DECT show promise for gout classification but the few studies to date have mostly been in patients with longstanding, established disease. The contribution of imaging over clinical features for gout classification criteria requires further examination.
    No preview · Article · Jun 2014 · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of a screening programme is to reduce an adverse health outcome in a defined population. Screening can be undertaken at several stages throughout the disease course: before the onset of disease, early in the course of the disease, or in established disease (for complications). In the setting of asymptomatic hyperuricaemia and gout, the aim of screening would be to identify those individuals with hyperuricaemia and therefore at risk of gout, with the aim of introducing interventions to prevent the onset of gout. Herein we consider the concepts of screening for hyperuricaemia and gout, potential screening methods, and target populations that might benefit from such an approach.
    No preview · Article · Aug 2014 · Nature Reviews Rheumatology
Show more