Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Transparency of disclosure in publication is necessary for readers to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (PCOIs). Past studies of accuracy of disclosure in rheumatology journals have focused exclusively on clinical practice guidelines and not research works. We assessed discrepancy in reporting PCOIs in clinically oriented manuscripts published in the three top-ranked (by impact factor) US-based general rheumatology journals. METHODS:We reviewed disclosures provided by first, second, and last authors of 50 published clinically oriented articles in each of the three top-ranked general US rheumatology journals. For each author, we extracted payment reports from the Open Payments Database (OPD) related to consulting fees, honoraria, and speaker or faculty compensation. We defined a PCOI as a payment received from a company with an ongoing clinical trial or a medication on the market related to the manuscript's subject matter within the 36 months before the online publication date. We additionally analyzed each author individually to determine whether their reported disclosures matched PCOIs from the OPD. RESULTS:Of 150 articles analyzed, 101 included authors with PCOIs. Ninety-two of these 101 publications (92%) contained inaccurate (non- or under-) disclosures. Among 135 authors with PCOIs, 118 reported inaccurately (87%). All 14 articles that published clinical trial results (and all 23 of their qualifying authors) had disclosure inaccuracies. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Inaccurate financial disclosure by authors remains an issue in clinically oriented research studies reported in top rheumatology journals. Improved community education and firmer expectations would permit readers to better assess any possible impact of PCOIs on publications.

Patient-reported functional assessment tools for evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are critical, have been in use for some time, and may soon be a means of measuring rheumatologists' clinical quality of care.

OBJECTIVE:To provide guidance for the management of gout, including indications for and optimal use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT), treatment of gout flares, and lifestyle and other medication recommendations. METHODS:Fifty-seven population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions were developed, followed by a systematic literature review, including network meta-analyses with ratings of the available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and patient input. A group consensus process was used to compose the final recommendations and grade their strength as strong or conditional. RESULTS:Forty-two recommendations (including 16 strong recommendations) were generated. Strong recommendations included initiation of ULT for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage due to gout, or frequent gout flares; allopurinol as the preferred first-line ULT, including for those with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; stage >3); using a low starting dose of allopurinol (≤100 mg/day, and lower in CKD) or febuxostat (<40 mg/day); and a treat-to-target management strategy with ULT dose titration guided by serial serum urate (SU) measurements, with an SU target of <6 mg/dl. When initiating ULT, concomitant antiinflammatory prophylaxis therapy for a duration of at least 3-6 months was strongly recommended. For management of gout flares, colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or glucocorticoids (oral, intraarticular, or intramuscular) were strongly recommended. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Using GRADE methodology and informed by a consensus process based on evidence from the current literature and patient preferences, this guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making decisions on the management of gout.

OBJECTIVE:To provide guidance for the management of gout, including indications for and optimal use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT), treatment of gout flares, and lifestyle and other medication recommendations. METHODS:Fifty-seven population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions were developed, followed by a systematic literature review, including network meta-analyses with ratings of the available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and patient input. A group consensus process was used to compose the final recommendations and grade their strength as strong or conditional. RESULTS:Forty-two recommendations (including 16 strong recommendations) were generated. Strong recommendations included initiation of ULT for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage due to gout, or frequent gout flares; allopurinol as the preferred first-line ULT, including for those with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; stage >3); using a low starting dose of allopurinol (≤100 mg/day, and lower in CKD) or febuxostat (<40 mg/day); and a treat-to-target management strategy with ULT dose titration guided by serial serum urate (SU) measurements, with an SU target of <6 mg/dl. When initiating ULT, concomitant antiinflammatory prophylaxis therapy for a duration of at least 3-6 months was strongly recommended. For management of gout flares, colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or glucocorticoids (oral, intraarticular, or intramuscular) were strongly recommended. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Using GRADE methodology and informed by a consensus process based on evidence from the current literature and patient preferences, this guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making decisions on the management of gout.

The value of a large systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) inception cohort cannot be overstated. Nevertheless, this study's finding regarding the prevalence of "ANA-negative lupus" is debatable. The topline message from the manuscript is that within the 1,132 patients enrolled in the group, 6.2% were anti-cellular antibody negative. It needs to be emphasized, however, that this subset of patients had been receiving treatment for months prior to enrollment. Antibody status at the time of enrollment is therefore not necessarily reflective of what their antibody status had been when their illness was first identified, and therapy begun.

To the Editors: We agree with Drs. Choi, et al, and their insightful analysis of the limitations of the CARES trial. [1] They point out that the dropout rate for the study was nearly 60%, and that when a post-hoc analysis included data on as many dropped-out patients as could be identified, the adverse CV signal for febuxostat was no longer significant. Additionally, most of the CV events (and deaths) occurred after drug discontinuation, making it difficult to impute causation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Gout is associated with the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, but the biological relationship between the two remains uncertain. The demonstration of reduction of cardiovascular risk with appropriate gout treatment would argue for a causal role for gout in cardiovascular disease. We reviewed recent studies that address the relationship between gout and cardiovascular disease. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Studies are conflicting; some show that lowering serum uric acid levels leads to better cardiovascular outcomes, whereas others show no such benefit. Inconsistencies in study design may contribute to these variations in outcome. Additionally, different gout treatment strategies may affect cardiovascular outcomes differently. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Despite an abundance of data generated in the last 5 years, it remains unclear whether treating gout with urate-lowering therapy provides a cardiovascular benefit. Additionally, further studies are needed to clarify whether different urate-lowering drugs confer different cardiovascular risks or benefits. Nonurate-lowering agents used for gout or commonly used in gout patients, such as colchicine and statins, may also improve cardiovascular outcomes in this population.