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
    • 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

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
    • 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
EditorialEditorial

Remission in Gout: Concepts From a Patient Perspective

Puja Khanna
The Journal of Rheumatology March 2022, 49 (3) 242-243; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.211285
Puja Khanna
1P. Khanna, MD, MPH, Associate Professor, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan & AAVAMC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Puja Khanna
  • For correspondence: pkhanna@umich.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Any human who has ever experienced an acute gout flare understands how painful and debilitating this condition is. Unfortunately, due to the episodic nature of these acute flares that occur randomly due to transient fluctuations in urate levels, patients often underreport these attacks. This turns into a tragedy—patients are left untreated and develop chronic gouty arthritis where pain-free periods are infrequent and joint damage is abundant. The holy grail in clinical trials, whether acute or chronic gout, has been to understand the various nuances of adherence because we know that it leads to prevention and perhaps remission: how long can a patient stay flare free, how do we quantify it, and what measures should we use?

Despite the increase in the number of gout cases,1 the disease is equally mismanaged in primary care and the rheumatology subspecialty. This is evident in the literature, with suboptimal dosing of urate-lowering drugs, intolerance to therapy, or poor patient compliance. Guidelines across the globe have highlighted the gaps in care and the poor quality of life. Gout is considered the most treatable arthritis in the Western World, with the pathophysiology directly related to uric acid metabolism and effective medications available to treat both acute episodes and chronic tophaceous gout.2,3 Prior studies have shown that treatment of chronic gout leads to improvement in patient-reported outcomes,4 and inadequate control has a substantial economic effect on the patient, employer, and society.5,6 Interestingly, gout has the lowest adherence to medications (38%) across common chronic conditions such as hypertension, osteoporosis, and diabetes mellitus. Further, demographics and poor adherence to chronic therapy7,8,9 are considered important attributes in developing tophaceous gout.

Focus groups conducted among patients with gout and their physicians have shown a variety of barriers that are perceived as a hindrance but were easily circumvented to accomplish the successful treat-to-target strategies established in gout.10,11 A conceptual model (Figure 1) that integrates (1) modifiable factors, including behavioral, psychosocial, clinical, and patient and provider factors; and (2) nonmodifiable aspects, including genetics and metabolic factors, is important. However, patient factors (such as demographics, nonadherence, diet, poor knowledge regarding gout) and healthcare factors (suboptimal dosing of urate-lowering therapy [ULT], gaps in disease education), along with associated comorbidities, contribute more toward this disparity in attaining therapeutic goals for our patients.

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

Conceptual model integrating patient and healthcare factors.

In this issue of The Journal of Rheumatology, te Kampe and colleagues have made a commendable effort to put some of these patient-centric issues into perspective for us.12 This cross-sectional survey was conducted in 14 countries across Europe in 2018, utilizing an online survey. Patients were primarily recruited from open panels of an online market research organization (Dynata and Toluna), patient associations, and from rheumatologists or general practitioners (GP) who were aware of the study and could hand out leaflets to potential patients. The intention was to assess health- and patient-centered outcomes in gout across Europe and explore differences at multiple strata including patient-, care-, and country-level characteristics associated with these outcomes. They attempted to clarify the differences between patient-reported health outcomes and patient-centered outcomes, such as satisfaction with treatment and patients’ personal treatment goals. Outcomes included recurrence of gout flares (≥ 3 gout flares and ≥ 1 gout flare in the past year); self-reported effect of gout on mental and physical health; missed work (for those employed, ≥ 1 workday missed in past year due to gout); patients’ satisfaction with current medication; and patients’ unaddressed treatment goals. The unaddressed treatment goals were calculated as the sum of the treatment goals that patients indicated were relevant to them, but that were not addressed by their physician. Most of the 1029 patients were diagnosed by a GP and 70% reported ≥ 1 gout flares in a 12-month period; 32% had ≥ 3 flares. In addition, 43% of patients reported an effect on mental and physical health and 52% of those employed missed ≥ 1 working day due to gout in the past year. Nevertheless, 80% of the patients were satisfied with their current medication and patients expressed at least 1 unaddressed treatment goal. As expected, gout flares contributed substantially to worse health and patient-centered outcomes. Similarly, being on current ULT was consistently associated with better health and patient-centered outcomes, except for unaddressed treatment goals. Of note, the patients from wealthier countries reported more frequent gout flares.

However, it is difficult to assess the effect of care on patients’ experiences (eg, unaddressed goals, satisfaction) or speculate about the relationship between these experiences and health outcomes in a cross-sectional study. Although patient recruitment and selection was comparable, a differential selection bias can be difficult to exclude. Therefore, is it pragmatic to draw meaningful comparisons between health and patient-centered outcomes of patients with gout in different countries from an online survey without more information about their general health and socioeconomic status? Perhaps this is a goal to incorporate and pursue as a future direction in gout studies.

Global gout prevalence has doubled from 1990 to 2017, with 41.2 million prevalent cases of gout in the world, 7.1 million incident cases per year, and nearly 1.3 million years living with disabilities.13 On average gout patients spend 35 days of a year in a state of flare.13 Regional point prevalence varies greatly, from 4.6-fold in Australasia to the lowest prevalence in Central Latin America, as does socioeconomic status.14 Mapping these acute attacks is so vital to the challenge of understanding and analyzing the occurrence of gout flares.14 And where better to seek these answers than from the key stakeholder in this story—our gout patient? Of course, questions remain unanswered about patient factors or system/access issues that correlate with educational needs required to ensure adherence to therapy. Regular longitudinal assessments of satisfaction with gout management in a daily practice cohort can provide more insight into factors contributing to satisfaction and its causal relation with health outcomes.

Footnotes

  • The author declares no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

  • See Patient voices in gout, page 312

  • Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Rheumatology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Chen-Xu M,
    2. Yokose C,
    3. Rai SK,
    4. Pillinger MH,
    5. Choi HK.
    Contemporary Prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia in the United States and decadal trends: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2016. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019; 71:991-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Burns CM,
    2. Wortmann RL.
    Gout therapeutics: new drugs for an old disease. Lancet 2011;377:165-77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Terkeltaub R.
    Update on gout: new therapeutic strategies and options. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2010;6:30-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Taylor WJ,
    3. Simon LS, et al.
    Patient-reported outcomes in chronic gout: a report from OMERACT 10. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1452-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Zleik N,
    2. Elfishawi MM,
    3. Kvrgic Z, et al.
    Hospitalization increases the risk of acute arthritic flares in gout: a population-based study over 2 decades. J Rheumatol 2018;45:1188-91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Lim SY,
    2. Lu N,
    3. Oza A, et al.
    Trends in gout and rheumatoid arthritis hospitalizations in the United States, 1993-2011. JAMA 2016;315:2345-7.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Harrold LR,
    2. Andrade SE,
    3. Briesacher BA, et al.
    Adherence with urate-lowering therapies for the treatment of gout. Arthritis Res Ther 2009;11:R46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sarawate CA,
    2. Brewer KK,
    3. Yang W, 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
  9. 9.↵
    1. Scheepers LE,
    2. van Onna M,
    3. Stehouwer CDA,
    4. Singh JA,
    5. Arts ICW,
    6. Boonen A.
    Medication adherence among patients with gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2018;47:689-702.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Khanna P,
    2. Berrocal V,
    3. An L,
    4. Khanna D.
    Development and pilot testing of MyGoutCare: a novel web-based platform to educate patients with gout. J Clin Rheumatol 2020;26:320-6.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Doherty M,
    2. Jenkins W,
    3. Richardson H, 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. te Kampe R,
    2. Jansen TL,
    3. van Durme C,
    4. Janssen M,
    5. Petersen G,
    6. Boonen A.
    Outcomes of care among patients with gout in Europe: a cross-sectional survey. J Rheumatol 2022;49:312-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Safiri S,
    2. Kolahi AA,
    3. Cross M, et al.
    Prevalence, incidence, and years lived with disability due to gout and its attributable risk factors for 195 countries and territories 1990-2017: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72:1916-27.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Teoh N,
    2. Gamble GD,
    3. Horne A,
    4. Taylor WJ,
    5. Palmano K,
    6. Dalbeth N.
    The challenges of gout flare reporting: mapping flares during a randomized controlled trial. BMC Rheumatol 2019;3:27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 49, Issue 3
1 Mar 2022
  • 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.
Remission in Gout: Concepts From a Patient Perspective
(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: Concepts From a Patient Perspective
Puja Khanna
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2022, 49 (3) 242-243; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.211285

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: Concepts From a Patient Perspective
Puja Khanna
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2022, 49 (3) 242-243; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.211285
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
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Uveitis in Juvenile Psoriatic Arthritis: Still So Much To Learn
  • Spondyloarthritis Among Patients With Uveitis: Can We Improve Referral Pathways?
  • Is It Good to Simplify Clinimetry in Chronic Inflammatory Joint Diseases?
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
  • 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