Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • 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
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

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

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • 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
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
EditorialEditorial

Remission in Gout: The Key to Patient Satisfaction?

Michael Toprover and Michael H. Pillinger
The Journal of Rheumatology February 2021, 48 (2) 160-161; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.200443
Michael Toprover
1M. Toprover, MD, Clinical Instructor in Medicine, M.H. Pillinger, MD, Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, and Rheumatology Section, Department of Medicine, New York Harbor Health Care System New York Campus, Department of Veterans Affairs, New York, New York, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael H. Pillinger
1M. Toprover, MD, Clinical Instructor in Medicine, M.H. Pillinger, MD, Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, and Rheumatology Section, Department of Medicine, New York Harbor Health Care System New York Campus, Department of Veterans Affairs, New York, New York, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael H. Pillinger
  • For correspondence: michael.pillinger@nyulangone.org
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Thomas Sydenham (1624–1689) described gout flare pain as a feeling of “dislocated bones,” sometimes akin to the “gnawing of a dog, and sometimes a weight”1. These strong words are not unusual: The majority of gout patients rate their flare pain as severe or very severe, with gout ranking among the top 2 health conditions for its negative effect on patients’ quality of life2. Despite the excruciating pain that patients with gout intermittently suffer, physicians continue to do a poor job of preventing gout flares. Even among patients with severe or very severe symptoms, only 57% of patients with gout are prescribed urate-lowering therapy (ULT)3. Among those who have been prescribed a urate-lowering drug, noncompliance may be as high as 61%4.

Multiple factors contribute to these unfortunate statistics. The burden of gout care falls most heavily upon overworked primary care physicians (PCP), who, within an average visit of 15 or 20 minutes, must prioritize the many comorbid conditions common to gout patients, including high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease, high cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease5,6. Guidelines for gout treatment are dissonant: rheumatology societies recommend ULT in most cases, whereas American College of Physician guidelines take a more lackadaisical approach7,8. Inadequate patient and provider education further leads PCP and their gout patients away from optimal treatment9. These factors contribute to a large disease burden for patients, who, in the face of poor gout control, have more outpatient visits, emergency room visits, and inpatient stays than matched patients without gout, with subsequent increased healthcare utilization and costs10. Education and persistence about urate lowering works: In one study, Doherty, et al reported that training research nurses to deliver guideline-based gout care resulted in improved adherence to ULT, better achievement of target urate, and better patient quality of life, as well as corresponding decreases in tophi and cost of care, compared to usual care by general practitioners over a 2-year period11.

Understanding what is important to our patients and improving our ability to support them on their own terms could increase treatment adherence and gout clinical outcomes. In this context, the study by Taylor, et al in the current issue of The Journal of Rheumatology12 helps bridge the gap between what matters most to patients (cessation of flares) and what matters most to physicians (targeted urate lowering with compliance to medication). The study’s authors set out to understand how gout flare frequency affected patient perception regarding the state of their own disease, defined as remission, low disease activity (LDA), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS).

Evaluating 512 patients across 17 countries, Taylor, et al12 asked patients how they perceived their own condition. Overall, patients agreed that they were in remission if they had no flares in either the past 6 or 12 months. In contrast, patients considered that 2 or more flares in the past 6 or 12 months were equivalent to high disease activity, aligning well with the American College of Rheumatology guidelines on when to institute ULT in patients with gout8. Of note, the authors found no difference in patient perception regarding remission if they had had no flares in 6 or 12 months, possibly helping to reduce time of monitoring patients for gout remission in future studies.

In the “gray zone” between remission and high activity, the authors’ results further advance our understanding of what constitutes acceptable gout disease activity from the patient’s perspective. With each additional flare over the past 6 months, patients were 15% less likely to rate their disease as being in LDA/PASS, while in the prior 12 months, each flare was associated with 5% lower odds of self-categorizing as being in LDA/PASS. Patients thus seemed to remember recent flares more vividly and judge their recent disease as being worse; a similar flare more than 6 months earlier did not trigger a similar concern for severity. The psychology of pain recollection is an underinvestigated area and may differ according to the type and context of the pain. In one study, patients rated their pain during a cardiac event as worse 6 months after the event than they did during the event itself13. Whether the ability of gout patients to “forget” the pain of older episodes contributes to poor treatment compliance is an area worthy of investigation.

An important next step is to understand how patients who consider their gout to be in remission think about the benefits of ULT. What do they think about a treatment with a “silent” effect (i.e., lack of flares), and how does that thinking connect with their current and future gout control? By understanding how patients perceive their gout and what compels patients to seek good treatment and control, we may be able to help drive patient-centered care and improve adherence to therapy.

Footnotes

  • MHP reports that he has served as a consultant to Swedish Orphan Biovitrum and Horizon Therapeutics, and holds investigator-initiated grants for unrelated investigations from Hikma Pharmaceuticals and Horizon Therapeutics.

  • See Flare thresholds in gout, page 293

  • Copyright © 2021 by the Journal of Rheumatology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Dorwart BB.
    Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689), on gout: 1717. J Clin Rheumatol 2004;10:227.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Edwards NL.
    Patient perceptions of gout management goals: a cross-sectional internet survey. J Clin Rheumatol 2019 Jan 4 (Epub ahead of print).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Shah N,
    3. Edwards NL.
    A cross-sectional internet-based patient survey of the management strategies for gout. BMC Complement Altern Med 2016;16:90.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Scheepers L,
    2. Burden AM,
    3. Arts IC,
    4. Spaetgens B,
    5. Souverein P,
    6. de Vries F, et al.
    Medication adherence among gout patients initiated allopurinol: a retrospective cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Rheumatology 2018;57:1641-50.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Keenan RT,
    2. O’Brien WR,
    3. Lee KH,
    4. Crittenden DB,
    5. Fisher MC,
    6. Goldfarb DS, et al.
    Prevalence of contraindications and prescription of pharmacologic therapies for gout. Am J Med 2011;124:155-63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mechanic D,
    2. McAlpine DD,
    3. Rosenthal M.
    Are patients’ office visits with physicians getting shorter? N Engl J Med 2001;344:198-204.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Qaseem A,
    2. Harris RP,
    3. Forciea MA.
    Management of acute and recurrent gout: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2017;166:58-68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Khanna D,
    2. Fitzgerald JD,
    3. Khanna PP,
    4. Bae S,
    5. Singh MK,
    6. Neogi T, 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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ogdie AR,
    2. Hoch S,
    3. Dunham J,
    4. Von Feldt JM.
    A roadmap for education to improve the quality of care in gout. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2010;22:173-80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Lee YY,
    2. Tang CH,
    3. Chen JH,
    4. Kuo LN,
    5. Ko Y.
    Evaluation of healthcare costs and utilization for patients with gout: a population-based matched cohort study. Curr Med Res Opin 2018;34:735-40.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Doherty M,
    2. Jenkins W,
    3. Richardson H,
    4. Sarmanova A,
    5. Abhishek A,
    6. Ashton D, et al.
    Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care involving education and engagement of patients and a treat-to-target urate-lowering strategy versus usual care for gout: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018;392:1403-12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Taylor W,
    2. Dalbeth N,
    3. Saag KG,
    4. Singh JA,
    5. Rahn EJ,
    6. Mudano AS, et al.
    Flare rate thresholds for patient assessment of gout disease activity states. J Rheumatol 2021;48:293–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Everts B,
    2. Karlson B,
    3. Währborg P,
    4. Abdon N,
    5. Herlitz J,
    6. Hedner T.
    Pain recollection after chest pain of cardiac origin. Cardiology 1999;92:115-20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 48, Issue 2
1 Feb 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
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.
Remission in Gout: The Key to Patient Satisfaction?
(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
Remission in Gout: The Key to Patient Satisfaction?
Michael Toprover, Michael H. Pillinger
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2021, 48 (2) 160-161; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.200443

Citation Manager Formats

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

 Request Permissions

Share
Remission in Gout: The Key to Patient Satisfaction?
Michael Toprover, Michael H. Pillinger
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2021, 48 (2) 160-161; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.200443
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Save to my folders

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Survival of Patients With Alveolar Hemorrhage Secondary to Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody–associated Vasculitis
  • Inflammatory Joint Diseases and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Modern Rheumatology
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatic Diseases: It Is Time to Better Understand This Association
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

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
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2016 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire