Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleArticle
Open Access

An Observational Study of Gout Prevalence and Quality of Care in a National Australian General Practice Population

Philip C. Robinson, William J. Taylor and Nicola Dalbeth
The Journal of Rheumatology September 2015, 42 (9) 1702-1707; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.150310
Philip C. Robinson
From the Centre for Neurogenetics and Statistical Genomics, Queensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland; Department of Rheumatology, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia; Department of Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington; Bone and Joint Research Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: philip.robinson@uq.edu.au
William J. Taylor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicola Dalbeth
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. The central strategy for effective gout management is longterm urate-lowering therapy to maintain the serum urate at a level below 0.36 mmol/l. We sought to determine the prevalence of gout and the quality of care in a national Australian general practice population.

Methods. Data were from general practice point-of-care electronic records over a 5-year period (n = 1,479,449). Information was collected on patients with gout according to a validated definition. All patients who visited the same general practices over the study period formed the denominator group. We determined the estimated prevalence of gout, the frequency of allopurinol prescription, and serum urate testing, and the percentage of patients achieving a target serum urate level.

Results. The crude prevalence of gout in this general practice population was 1.54% (95% CI 1.52–1.56). Prevalence in men was 2.67% and in women 0.53%. Prevalence increased with age in both men and women (4.90%, 95% CI 4.82–4.99, in men > 65 yrs). Allopurinol was prescribed to 57% of patients with gout during the 5 years of the study. Only 55% of patients with gout had their serum urate tested at any time during the 5-year study period. A target serum urate concentration of < 0.36 mmol/l at any time during the 5-year study period was documented in 22.4% of all people with gout.

Conclusion. Gout is managed poorly in Australian primary care, with low levels of allopurinol prescribing and serum urate testing. Collectively, these factors probably contribute to low achievement of serum urate targets.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • GOUT
  • SERUM URATE
  • PREVALENCE
  • QUALITY OF CARE

Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis in men and is associated with functional impairment and significant comorbidity1,2,3. The prevalence of gout is increasing in developed countries4,5.

Gout is a chronic disease of monosodium urate (MSU) crystal deposition that can be effectively treated with longterm urate-lowering therapy (ULT). This requires treating to a serum urate target, which for the majority of people with gout is likely to be below 0.36 mmol/l6,7. Reducing the serum urate below this level leads to dissolution of MSU crystals, reduction and eventual disappearance of acute flares, and the reduction of tophi8. Effective longterm management requires continuing ULT and intermittent monitoring of serum urate to ensure that the treatment target is achieved and maintained6.

There is international evidence that gout is inadequately treated and that adherence to urate-lowering therapies is low9,10. For example, in a recent quality-of-care assessment in the United Kingdom, there were low levels of allopurinol prescription, infrequent serum urate and renal function testing, and very low rates of achievement of target serum urate levels documented11. Similar findings have been observed in North America and Europe12,13.

Australia is a large country of 26 million people in the Pacific with 6 states (Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania) and 2 territories (Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory). It is a developed nation with a national health system similar to that of the United Kingdom and Canada. It has a gross domestic product of US$1.6 billion, which is around 10% of the United States. In Australia, little research has focused on the prevalence of gout, although a review suggested that the prevalence is increasing14. The aim of our present study was to estimate the contemporary prevalence of gout in Australia and assess the quality of gout care in a large general practice population. We used a national general practice dataset to assess gout prevalence, the proportion of allopurinol use, the frequency of serum urate testing, and achievement of the recommended serum urate target.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Australian healthcare environment

The Australian primary healthcare environment is made up of general practices with medically trained general practitioners (GP). These GP provide the primary medical care for patients, including pediatrics, psychiatry, surgery, and most travel medicine. When patients have medical problems they attend their GP, with the visit being largely subsidized by the federal government through taxation. GP are private small businesses or corporate organizations and are free to set fees above the government rebate, a policy that requires the patient to pay additional out-of-pocket expenses. If a prescription is issued, the patient pays a small partial charge and the remainder is covered by the federal government. If a GP recommends additional specialist care, then he or she will refer the patient either to a private specialist provider (which is also partly subsidized by the federal government) or to a specialist at a public hospital, where the treatment is free of charge. Emergency department attendance at a public hospital is also free of charge. Most patients will see their GP on a regular basis even if they also attend a specialist doctor, for general healthcare needs (such as screening, contraception, and vaccination) unrelated to their specialist health problem, and also to obtain repeat prescriptions of medication that may have been initiated by a specialist doctor.

Data collection

We used general practice data collected in point-of-care GP electronic medical records (Medical Director 3, http://medicaldirector.com; BestPractice, bpsoftware.net; and ZedMed, zedmed.com.au) supplied by Practice Profiles Pty Limited (PPPL). The data were collected across Australia for 5 years from December 1, 2008, to November 30, 2013, for those aged 20 years or older. These computer-based point-of-care systems are used by GP in their daily work to record notes, order laboratory tests and imaging investigations, and issue prescriptions. Data were available from all states except Tasmania and the Northern Territory because at the time of provision of data, no practices were providing data to PPPL from those states. There was no information about the size of the population that each GP practice drew its patients from.

Patient inclusion and disease definition

We defined gout using a validated method for population-wide epidemiological studies of gout4,15,16,17. A patient was defined as having gout if they had (1) been prescribed allopurinol, (2) been prescribed colchicine, or (3) been coded as having gout in their computerized GP record, including tophi, tophus, or podagra. Patients with leukemia and lymphoma were excluded. This definition has been used previously in population prevalence studies and validated using capture-recapture methodology4,17.

Quality measures

Our study used as measures of gout care quality the proportion of patients prescribed urate-lowering medication, the number who had their serum urate checked, and the number who had a serum urate level below the target 0.36 mmol/l, a target widely recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, primary care guidelines, the European League Against Rheumatism, and other consensus guidelines6,7,18,19. The British Society for Rheumatology recommends a lower target of 0.30 mmol/l20. Similar quality measures have been used in other quality-of-care studies11.

Statistical analyses

Prevalence was calculated by dividing the number of patients with gout (numerator) by the total number in the population (denominator). To define the denominator for prevalence estimation, we collected data on all visits to participating GP during the study time period. Patients within each practice have a unique identifier and consecutive visits to the same GP are therefore identifiable. We then calculated crude and World Health Organization (WHO) age-standardized prevalence of gout21. We determined prevalence by sex, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. We also ascertained allopurinol use, serum urate testing, and renal function in the participants. Socioeconomic status (SES) was defined using the Australian Bureau of Statistics Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas 2011: The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage and applied by postcode22. The index allocates a score, with a low index score indicating the most disadvantage and a high index score indicating the least. There are 16 variables that make up this score including various percentages, such as of people who do not speak English well, of dwellings with no car, of people employed as low-skill community or personal service workers, of machinery operators, of drivers, of laborers, of unemployed people, of people with household income < A$20,799, and of children under 15 years old who live with jobless parents. Estimated glomerular filtration rate in those who had a serum creatinine measure was determined using the Modified Diet in Renal Disease formula23.

To quantify how similar the study cohort was to the Australian general population, we used Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) population demographic statistics for the quarter ending December 2013. We then used the prop.test() function in R to determine whether the demographic proportions (sex, socioeconomic status, age, and state distribution) in the study cohort were significantly different from the Australian general population.

All analyses were completed in R. We fitted a modified Poisson regression model with main effects to estimate relative risks. The R function generalized linear models and the R packages sandwich and lmtest were used for estimation. These estimates were adjusted for first-order effects but not interactions. Prevalence estimates were calculated and age standardized to the WHO reference population to facilitate international comparisons. Linear trends were assessed with linear regression and r2 and degrees of freedom reported with the p value.

To ascertain the most contemporary estimate of the proportion of those who had serum urate testing, we determined the frequency of serum urate testing in those with gout in the final year of the study. In addition, to estimate the rate of serum urate testing in those taking allopurinol in the final year, we assessed all patients with gout who received an allopurinol prescription in the final 15 months of the study. We used the time period of 15 months because those who received a prescription in the final 15 months of the study and were compliant would have been taking allopurinol in the final 12 months of the study, and would therefore enable estimation of the rate of serum urate testing in those taking allopurinol in the final 12 months of the study.

The study received approval from the University of Queensland Human Ethics Committee (#2014000393).

RESULTS

Participants

There were 1,479,449 unique patients seen in the general practices over the study time period who formed the population for denominator purposes. All comparisons of the denominator population with the ABS-reported Australian population were numerically similar; however, given the large population, the proportions were statistically significantly different (shown in Supplementary Table 1, available online at jrheum.org).

In total, there were 22,776 patients meeting the definition of gout. There were 12,208 patients coded as having gout, 12,975 patients prescribed allopurinol, and 7688 patients prescribed colchicine. The overlapping ascertainment of the gout study groups is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Overlapping ascertainment of the groups used in the study. 1. Labeled as gout. 2. Allopurinol prescription. 3. Colchicine prescription.

Prevalence and demographic trends

The crude prevalence of gout was 1.54% (95% CI 1.52–1.56). Age standardization resulted in a slightly lower estimate at 1.27% (95% CI 1.00–1.54).

The prevalence was about 5 times higher in men compared to women (Table 1). The prevalence of gout was lowest in current smokers, followed by nonsmokers and then ex-smokers. There was no clear trend in an association of gout prevalence by SES, with quintile 4 being elevated compared to the other quintiles but then quintile 5 being reduced. The estimated prevalence by age increased with very low numbers having gout in their 20s and increasing substantially in the elderly (Figure 2, and Supplementary Table 2, available online at jrheum.org). The prevalence rate increased steadily from 0.20% (95% CI 0.17–0.24%) in men aged 25–29 years to over 11.05% (95% CI 10.53–11.57%) in men older than 85 years. Women also showed a rising prevalence with age but the rates in premenopausal women were low compared to men. The prevalence in women over 85 years of age was 4.64% (95% CI 4.35–4.92%).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

The crude prevalence of gout by age and sex.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Prevalence of gout and relative risks by stratifying variables.

Allopurinol use

In those patients defined as having gout (by coding, allopurinol prescription, or colchicine prescription), 12,975/22,776 (57.0%) had an allopurinol prescription at any time over the 5-year study period. Allopurinol use was higher in males (10,858/18,583, 58.4%) compared to females (2,122/4,185, 50.7%, p < 0.0001). Allopurinol use also increased with age: prescribed in 565/1338 (42.2%) of those 20 to 39 years, 4689/8868 (52.9%) of those 40 to 64 years, and 7726/12,570 (61.5%) of those aged 65 years and over (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). In patients who were coded with a diagnosis of gout, 5200/12,208 (42.6%) had a prescription for allopurinol at any time over the 5-year study period.

Frequency of serum urate testing and serum urate target achievement

Serum urate was tested at any time over the 5-year study period in 12,446/22,776 (54.6%) of patients with gout. The frequency of serum urate testing was significantly greater in those who were taking allopurinol (61.5% vs 45.6%, p < 0.001; Table 2). The estimated frequency of serum urate testing in those with gout in the final year of the study was 5656/22,776 (24.4%). The estimated rate of serum urate testing in those taking allopurinol in the final year of the study was 3717/8633 (43.1%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Serum urate (SU) testing by allopurinol prescription status.

In the patients with a serum urate test during the 5-year study period, 5093/12,446 (40.9%) had a target serum urate level (< 0.36 mmol/) recorded on at least 1 occasion. In those with serum creatinine and urate tests available (n = 2244), there was a progressive decrease in proportion of patients achieving the serum urate target with worsening stage of chronic kidney disease (p = 0.005, degrees of freedom = 3, r2 = 0.93). In total, 5093/22,776 (22.4%) of all patients with gout had a serum urate level below target (0.36 mmol/l) documented at any time during the 5-year period.

DISCUSSION

In our study, the contemporary crude national prevalence of gout in an Australian population of GP attendees was 1.54%. The absolute prevalence of gout in this population is consistent with GP data from Germany. In 2000 to 2005, the prevalence of gout in GP populations in Germany was 1.4%13. In 2012 the prevalence of gout in the United Kingdom was 2.5%24. Prevalence data from a US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2007 to 2008 reported a rate of 3.9%5. However, the NHANES study was a general population study, not a GP attendee population study. The reasons for such diverse estimates of gout prevalence from countries with similar levels of development may relate to individual study design (particularly case ascertainment), health-seeking behavior, or the contribution of environmental factors specific to each country such as diet.

A recent metaanalysis examining gout prevalence found high heterogeneity in studies (I2 = 99.9%), with an unweighted mean prevalence of 1.6% and a pooled estimated prevalence of 0.6% (95% CI 0.4–0.7)25. Our study found demographic patterns of gout similar to those seen in other studies, with more men than women and prevalence increasing substantially with age.

Our study found that only 55% of patients with gout had their serum urate tested in the 5 years of the study. In GP cohorts in Germany and the United Kingdom over a period of 3.5 to 5 years, 9% and 14% had a serum urate test, respectively13. This suggests that testing in Australia is higher than in these comparable countries. This may be because urate is often assayed as part of routine biochemistry analyses in Australia, and that may not be the case in the United Kingdom and Germany.

We observed very low levels of achievement of target serum urate concentrations over the 5-year period. These results were similar to a large US claims study that found that 21% of treated patients with gout had serum urate levels below target26. In our study, allopurinol was prescribed to only 43% of patients labeled as having gout in GP records and 57% of patients defined as having gout by the validated combined drug-labeling definition in the 5 years of the study. The rate of allopurinol prescription in GP cohorts from 2000 to 2005 in the United Kingdom and Germany was 56% and 79%, respectively13. In a large US managed-care population in 1999 to 2004, 40% had a prescription of allopurinol. In New Zealand it was estimated that 57% of patients with gout in 2010/2011 were taking allopurinol15. The proportion of patients who had a serum urate level below target decreased as renal function declined. This might represent underdosing in those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) because of a fear of increased adverse events in CKD, and has been noted previously27. Collectively, the results of the current study support previous international research findings that primary care patients with gout are often not treated with urate-lowering therapy and they do not have their serum urate tested as often as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology and primary care gout guidelines6,19,28.

Our study found no association between area level SES and gout. Previous studies from New Zealand have found this association; however, research from England found only an association at an individual level between income and gout but not using an area level measure of deprivation4,29.

There are a number of limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results of our study. The definition of gout we used for the study is not 100% sensitive or specific. The validity of a GP label of gout is moderate based on urate crystal identification as a gold standard30,31. A small number of medical conditions such as asymptomatic hyperuricemia, uric acid kidney stones, and familial Mediterranean fever are treated with agents such as allopurinol and colchicine. However, the number of patients in these groups is very small. We specifically excluded patients with leukemia and lymphoma, because these conditions can be treated with allopurinol.

Owing to the data source and the absence of Tasmania and the Northern Territory (which together have 3% of the Australian population), the sample is not completely representative of the Australian population. It is known that there are more Australian Aborigines in the Northern Territory. Numerically, the proportions of sex, age, and SES were similar to the general population; however, the large size of the comparator population means small differences generate statistically significant results. Although we could detect patients who visited the same practice repeatedly as the same patient, we were unable to identify return visits as the same patient if they visited a different participating practice. There would also have been patients who visited a practice from which we collected data and then left for a non-data practice for subsequent care during the study period, and vice versa. Because we only recorded people with gout who visited a GP, there is also the potential to underestimate gout prevalence. Using allopurinol as an inclusion criterion and also as an outcome introduces a degree of circularity, but the use of allopurinol as an inclusion criterion clearly identifies a large proportion of patients with gout who would otherwise be missed because they are not labeled as gout by their GP or prescribed colchicine.

It is likely that almost all patients seen in secondary care justify pharmacological treatment, but the same is not true for primary care patients with gout. Information on the proportions justifying treatment is dependent on the guideline used to treat and the population. The authors are not aware of any information that is published on the likely size of each of these 2 groups, and they would also vary in size depending on the above factors. This therefore is a limitation for all research in this area, and limits the conclusions that can be drawn on the size of the undertreatment evidence in research such as this in primary care. The reasons for the widespread undertreatment of gout may relate to the perceived unavailability of adequate therapy, fear of medication side effects, or poor knowledge of treatments or consequences of undertreatment10. Another reason may also be the lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials that reduction of urate reduces gout flares; however, other evidence supports this premise32,33. Allopurinol is effective when used appropriately, but appropriate use requires slow up-titration, appropriate flare prophylaxis, and awareness of the potentially serious side effects34.

A further barrier to effective gout management may be the perception of healthcare professionals that gout is a trivial, self-inflicted condition that does not require regular therapy beyond treatment of acute attacks10. Contrary to these beliefs, gout is associated with substantial pain, functional disability, significant comorbidity, and reduced quality of life, as well as social stigma1,35,36. Recognition that gout is common and poorly managed is the first step toward improving the quality of care for people with gout.

ONLINE SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary data for this article are available online at jrheum.org.

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge Anne Bernard, who assisted with the statistical analysis.

Footnotes

  • Full Release Article. For details see Reprints/Permissions at jrheum.org

  • This study was an investigator-initiated project funded by AstraZeneca Australia. N. Dalbeth has received consulting fees, speaker fees, or grants from AstraZeneca. W.J. Taylor has received consulting fees or educational grants from AstraZeneca. P.C. Robinson has received consulting fees and research funding from AstraZeneca.

  • Accepted for publication May 22, 2015.

Free online via JRheum Full Release option

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Dalbeth N,
    2. Collis J,
    3. Gregory K,
    4. Clark B,
    5. Robinson E,
    6. McQueen FM
    . Tophaceous joint disease strongly predicts hand function in patients with gout. Rheumatology 2007;46:1804–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Robinson PC,
    2. Merriman TR,
    3. Herbison P,
    4. Highton J
    . Hospital admissions associated with gout and their co-morbidities in New Zealand and England 1999–2009. Rheumatology 2013;52:118–26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Robinson PC,
    2. Horsburgh S
    . Gout: joints and beyond, epidemiology, clinical features, treatment and co-morbidities. Maturitas 2014;78:245–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Winnard D,
    2. Wright C,
    3. Taylor WJ,
    4. Jackson G,
    5. Te Karu L,
    6. Gow PJ,
    7. et al.
    National prevalence of gout derived from administrative health data in Aotearoa New Zealand. Rheumatology 2012;51:901–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Zhu Y,
    2. Pandya BJ,
    3. Choi HK
    . Prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia in the US general population. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:3136–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Khanna D,
    2. Fitzgerald JD,
    3. Khanna PP,
    4. Bae S,
    5. Singh MK,
    6. Neogi T,
    7. et al.
    2012 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout. Part 1: systematic nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapeutic approaches to hyperuricemia. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:1431–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Zhang W,
    2. Doherty M,
    3. Bardin T,
    4. Pascual E,
    5. Barskova V,
    6. Conaghan P,
    7. et al.
    EULAR evidence-based recommendations for gout. Part II: Management. Report of a task force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:1312–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Perez-Ruiz F
    . Treating to target: a strategy to cure gout. Rheumatology 2009;48 Suppl 2:ii9–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Reach G
    . Treatment adherence in patients with gout. Joint Bone Spine 2011;78:456–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Pascual E,
    2. Sivera F
    . Why is gout so poorly managed? Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:1269–70.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Cottrell E,
    2. Crabtree V,
    3. Edwards JJ,
    4. Roddy E
    . Improvement in the management of gout is vital and overdue: an audit from a UK primary care medical practice. BMC Fam Pract 2013;14:170.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Sarawate CA,
    2. Brewer KK,
    3. Yang W,
    4. Patel PA,
    5. Schumacher HR,
    6. Saag KG,
    7. et al.
    Gout medication treatment patterns and adherence to standards of care from a managed care perspective. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81:925–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Annemans L,
    2. Spaepen E,
    3. Gaskin M,
    4. Bonnemaire M,
    5. Malier V,
    6. Gilbert T,
    7. et al.
    Gout in the UK and Germany: prevalence, comorbidities and management in general practice 2000–2005. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:960–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Robinson P,
    2. Taylor W,
    3. Merriman T
    . Systematic review of the prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia in Australia. Intern Med J 2012;42:997–1007.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Jackson G,
    2. Dalbeth N,
    3. Te Karu L,
    4. Winnard D,
    5. Gow P,
    6. Gerard C,
    7. et al.
    Variation in gout care in Aotearoa New Zealand: a national analysis of quality markers. N Z Med J 2014;127:37–47.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Winnard D,
    2. Wright C,
    3. Jackson G,
    4. Gow P,
    5. Kerr A,
    6. McLachlan A,
    7. et al.
    Gout, diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the Aotearoa New Zealand adult population: co-prevalence and implications for clinical practice. N Z Med J 2013;126:53–64.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Jackson G,
    2. Wright C,
    3. Thornley S,
    4. Taylor WJ,
    5. Te Karu L,
    6. Gow PJ,
    7. et al.
    Potential unmet need for gout diagnosis and treatment: capture-recapture analysis of a national administrative dataset. Rheumatology 2012;51:1820–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Hamburger M,
    2. Baraf HS,
    3. Adamson TC 3rd,
    4. Basile J,
    5. Bass L,
    6. Cole B,
    7. et al.
    2011 recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout and hyperuricemia. Postgrad Med 2011;123:3–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Roddy E
    . Gout: presentation and management in primary care. Arthritis Res UK 2011;6:9.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Jordan KM,
    2. Cameron JS,
    3. Snaith M,
    4. Zhang W,
    5. Doherty M,
    6. Seckl J,
    7. et al.
    British Society for Rheumatology and British Health Professionals in Rheumatology guideline for the management of gout. Rheumatology 2007;46:1372–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Ahmad OB,
    2. Boschi-Pinto C,
    3. Lopez AD,
    4. Murray CJ,
    5. Lozano R,
    6. Inoue M
    . Age standardization of rates: a new WHO standard. World Health Organization, 2001. [Internet. Accessed June 9, 2015.] Available from: www.who.int/healthinfo/paper31.pdf
  22. 22.↵
    1. Pink B
    . Socio-economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 2011. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2013.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Levey AS,
    2. Stevens LA,
    3. Schmid CH,
    4. Zhang YL,
    5. Castro AF 3rd,
    6. Feldman HI,
    7. et al.
    A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:604–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Kuo CF,
    2. Grainge MJ,
    3. Mallen C,
    4. Zhang W,
    5. Doherty M
    . Rising burden of gout in the UK but continuing suboptimal management: a nationwide population study. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:661–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Wijnands JM,
    2. Viechtbauer W,
    3. Thevissen K,
    4. Arts IC,
    5. Dagnelie PC,
    6. Stehouwer CD,
    7. et al.
    Determinants of the prevalence of gout in the general population: a systematic review and meta-regression. Eur J Epidemiol 2015;30:19–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Sarawate CA,
    2. Patel PA,
    3. Schumacher HR,
    4. Yang W,
    5. Brewer KK,
    6. Bakst AW
    . Serum urate levels and gout flares: analysis from managed care data. J Clin Rheumatol 2006;12:61–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Dalbeth N,
    2. Kumar S,
    3. Stamp L,
    4. Gow P
    . Dose adjustment of allopurinol according to creatinine clearance does not provide adequate control of hyperuricemia in patients with gout. J Rheumatol 2006;33:1646–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Dalbeth N
    . Gout — hit the target. Best Pract J 2007;8:9–18.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Hayward RA,
    2. Rathod T,
    3. Roddy E,
    4. Muller S,
    5. Hider SL,
    6. Mallen CD
    . The association of gout with socioeconomic status in primary care: a cross-sectional observational study. Rheumatology 2013;52:2004–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kienhorst LB,
    2. Janssens HJ,
    3. Fransen J,
    4. van de Lisdonk EH,
    5. Janssen M
    . Arthritis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint is not always gout: a prospective cohort study in primary care patients. Joint Bone Spine 2014;81:342–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Janssens HJ,
    2. Fransen J,
    3. van de Lisdonk EH,
    4. van Riel PL,
    5. van Weel C,
    6. Janssen M
    . A diagnostic rule for acute gouty arthritis in primary care without joint fluid analysis. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1120–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Shoji A,
    2. Yamanaka H,
    3. Kamatani N
    . A retrospective study of the relationship between serum urate level and recurrent attacks of gouty arthritis: evidence for reduction of recurrent gouty arthritis with antihyperuricemic therapy. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:321–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Becker MA,
    2. Schumacher HR,
    3. MacDonald PA,
    4. Lloyd E,
    5. Lademacher C
    . Clinical efficacy and safety of successful longterm urate lowering with febuxostat or allopurinol in subjects with gout. J Rheumatol 2009;36:1273–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Robinson PC,
    2. Dalbeth N
    . Advances in pharmacotherapy for the treatment of gout. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2015;16:533–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Lindsay K,
    2. Gow P,
    3. Vanderpyl J,
    4. Logo P,
    5. Dalbeth N
    . The experience and impact of living with gout: a study of men with chronic gout using a qualitative grounded theory approach. J Clin Rheumatol 2011;17:1–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Roddy E,
    2. Zhang W,
    3. Doherty M
    . Is gout associated with reduced quality of life? A case-control study. Rheumatology 2007;46:1441–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 42, Issue 9
1 Sep 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
An Observational Study of Gout Prevalence and Quality of Care in a National Australian General Practice Population
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
An Observational Study of Gout Prevalence and Quality of Care in a National Australian General Practice Population
Philip C. Robinson, William J. Taylor, Nicola Dalbeth
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2015, 42 (9) 1702-1707; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.150310

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
An Observational Study of Gout Prevalence and Quality of Care in a National Australian General Practice Population
Philip C. Robinson, William J. Taylor, Nicola Dalbeth
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2015, 42 (9) 1702-1707; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.150310
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

GOUT
SERUM URATE
PREVALENCE
QUALITY OF CARE

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Sleep Problems in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Literature Review and Metaanalysis
  • The Prognostic Potential of End-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis and Its Components to Predict Knee Replacement: Data From the Osteoarthritis Initiative
  • An Overview of Reviews to Inform Organization-Level Interventions to Address Burnout in Rheumatologists
Show more Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • gout
  • SERUM URATE
  • prevalence
  • quality of care

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire