Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Intra-articular (IA) injections of glucocorticoids (GCs) have been shown to decrease pain, increase mobility, and improve quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Concerns about cartilage loss with IA GCs have prompted reconsideration of their use in knee OA. This review has three objectives: 1) critically review the clinical, molecular, and structural effects of IA GCs in knee OA; 2) provide a design for a clinical trial aimed at improving our understanding of the long-term consequences of IA GCs; and 3) provide practical guidance on the use of IA GCs in patients with knee OA based on current information. DESIGN:A narrative review of current literature on the use of IA GCs for OA of the knee. RESULTS:Important questions remain to be fully answered with respect to IA GCs, including long-term effects on all aspects of the structural and molecular environment of the knee, and identification of factors that can reliably predict a positive or negative response to IA GCs. CONCLUSIONS:While awaiting results from an appropriately designed study, several provisional statements regarding IA GCs can be put forward: 1) IA GCs appear to be a relatively safe option that is effective in specific patients with symptomatic knee OA; 2) there is no definitive evidence that IA GCs accelerate joint deterioration to an important extent or hastens the requirement for knee replacement; and 3) there are few contraindications to IA GCs and injection-associated complications are rare when IA GCs are delivered with proper technique.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis in the USA, affecting about 4% of all adults. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released a new guideline in 2020 to help with the management of gout. This guideline serves as an update to the previous set of guidelines which the ACR published in 2012. The purpose of this review is to compare the 2012 ACR gout guidelines to the newly released 2020 ACR gout guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:There are many similarities between the two guidelines, and also several key differences. The 2020 guidelines assist in the clinical management of gout by healthcare providers. Additionally, the new guidelines utilize newer literature to help create an evidence-based approach to the treatment for gout. We discuss the methodological approach to each guideline (RAND versus GRADE), as well as the final recommendations for gout flare treatment, use of imaging, urate-lowering therapy, lifestyle changes, and genetic testing prior to initiation of allopurinol in each guideline, as well as lingering issues that the 2020 guidelines have not addressed. We dissect both the 2012 and 2020 ACR gout guidelines to summarize the key similarities and differences between the two as well as discuss how the authors came to the recommendations that they did for each set of guidelines.

BACKGROUND:Inflammation is associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) and myocardial infarction (MI). Patients with gout are at increased risk of MI, and colchicine is associated with a reduced risk of MI. The objective of this study was to determine whether colchicine prevents incident development of CAD in patients with gout. METHODS:This retrospective study followed a cohort of male gout patients without known CAD at the time of gout diagnosis in the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. The association between colchicine use and development of incident CAD, defined as evidence of ischemia or obstructive CAD on stress test or angiography, was determined using an inverse probability weighted (IPW) cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS:Among 178,877 patients, 1,638 met gout criteria, of whom 722 patients without known CAD at baseline (446 colchicine users and 276 non-users) were followed for a median of 96 months [57-117]. A trend toward association between colchicine use and reduced incident CAD was observed but not statistically significant (IPW HR 0.49 [0.23-1.05]). In patients without chronic kidney disease, colchicine use was associated with a lower rate of incident CAD (interaction p=0.005, IPW HR 0.31 [0.14-0.70]). Colchicine was also associated with a lower rate of the composite of incident CAD and MI (IPW HR 0.37 [0.16-0.83]). CONCLUSIONS:In male patients with gout and no known CAD, a trend of reduced incident CAD was observed with colchicine use that was not statistically significant. Larger, prospective studies will be required to definitively assess the primary prevention benefit of colchicine.

Background/Purpose: Spinal gout is reported as a rare event, presenting as acute back pain, neuropathy, and spinal compression. Diagnosis is commonly based on identification of a mass, followed by tissue confirmation of monosodium urate (MSU) deposition. It is likely that many more cases of gout involve the spine asymptomatically or with non-specific or under-recognized symptoms.
Method(s): Using dual-energy CT (DECT), we are determining the prevalence/extent of MSU deposition in the lumbosacral spines of patients with gout vs without gout, and with tophaceous vs non-tophaceous gout. We are recruiting 25 controls, 25 non-tophaceous and 25 tophaceous gout patients, 50-80 years old. Exclusion criteria include known CPPD disease, RA, spondyloarthropathy or active spinal malignancy. All gout subjects meet ACR classification criteria and have entry serum urate (sU) of >6.8 mg/dL, or sU >6.0 mg/dL on ULT for < 6 months. Demographics, gout history, Aberdeen back pain scale, sU, ESR, and CRP are collected. Subjects undergo DECT of the lumbosacral spine to assess for MSU deposition and osteoarthritic changes.
Result(s): 61 subjects are enrolled to date (25 control, 24 non-tophaceous and 12 tophaceous gout). Control and gout (all pooled) subjects have similar mean age in years (controls, 61.8+/-3.8 vs gout, 64.1+/-7.32, p=0.15), but differ in BMI (controls, 28.3+/-6.5 kg/m 2 vs gout, 32.35+/-6.9 kg/m 2, p=0.02) and creatinine (controls, 1.0+/-0.2 mg/dL vs gout, 1.5+/-0.7 mg/dL, p< 0.05). Mean sU and ESR are higher in gout subjects (sU-controls, 5.3+/-1 mg/dL vs gout, 8.7+/-1.7 mg/dL, p< 0.05; ESR-controls, 13.7+/-13.8 mm/h vs gout, 25.3+/-18.3 mm/h, p< 0.05). Using default threshold settings for MSU visualization, greater MSU deposition is observed in the spine of gout patients (controls, 2.2+/-1.2 cm 3 vs gout, 10.8+/-32.2 cm 3, p=0.18; Fig 1). When a single gout outlier with excessively high sU and spinal MSU is excluded, spinal MSU deposition between controls and gout patients becomes significant (controls, 2.2+/-1.2 cm 3 vs gout, 5.6+/-7.8 cm 3, p=0.04). Reanalysis of several scans using narrower threshold settings to limit possible artifact confirms increased MSU signal among gout patients. Although many subjects in each group do not have excessive MSU deposition, deposition is more common in both gout groups (Fig 2). Thus far, MSU deposition is not different between non-tophaceous and tophaceous gout patients (non-tophaceous, 12.3+/-2.92 cm 3 vs tophaceous, 7.9+/-3.2 cm 3, p = 0.7). No subject demonstrated a frank spinal tophus. Gout patients report higher back pain scores (controls, 5.7+/-8.3, vs gout, 11.8+/-14.3, p=0.06). Across all groups deposition is greater in patients with higher sU.
Conclusion(s): Based on preliminary results, gout patients have higher inflammatory markers, more spinal MSU deposition, and increased back pain versus controls. Preliminary results with more stringent DECT threshold settings suggests these differences are not artifact, but analysis is ongoing. These data suggest that non-tophaceous MSU deposition in the spine occurs in a subset of gout patients, is associated with sU level, and may be associated with low back pain

BACKGROUND:Patients with aortic stenosis are nearly twice as likely to have a diagnosis of gout compared with individuals without aortic valve disease. METHODS:, and/or decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction due to aortic stenosis. RESULTS:/year [-0.16, -0.01], p=0.09); annualized change in peak velocity and mean gradient did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS:Progression to severe aortic stenosis was more frequent in patients with gout versus those without gout supporting the hypothesis that gout is a risk factor for aortic stenosis.

To assess the impact of allopurinol on diabetes in a retrospective cohort of Veterans' Affairs patients with gout.The New York Harbor VA computerized patient record system was searched to identify patients with an ICD-9 code for gout meeting at least 4 modified 1977 American Rheumatology Association gout diagnostic criteria. Patients were divided into subgroups based on >30 continuous days of allopurinol, versus no allopurinol. New diagnoses of diabetes, defined according to American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria or clinical documentation explicitly stating a new diagnosis of diabetes, were identified during an observation period from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2015.Six hundred six gout patients used allopurinol >30 continuous days, and 478 patients never used allopurinol. Over an average 7.9 ± 4.8 years of follow-up, there was no significant difference in diabetes incidence between the allopurinol and non-allopurinol groups (11.7/1000 person-years vs 10.0/1000 person-years, P = .27). A lower diabetes incidence in the longest versus shortest quartiles of allopurinol use (6.3 per 1000 person-years vs 19.4 per 1000 person-years, P<.0001) was attributable to longer duration of medical follow-up.In this study, allopurinol use was not associated with decreased diabetes incidence. Prospective studies may further elucidate the relationship between hyperuricemia, gout, xanthine oxidase activity, and diabetes, and the potential impact of gout treatments on diabetes incidence.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents an unprecedented challenge and opportunity for translational investigators to rapidly develop safe and effective therapeutic interventions. Greater risk of severe disease in COVID-19 patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus, obesity, and heart disease may be attributable to synergistic activation of vascular inflammation pathways associated with both COVID-19 and cardiometabolic disease. This mechanistic link provides a scientific framework for translational studies of drugs developed for treatment of cardiometabolic disease as novel therapeutic interventions to mitigate inflammation and improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:Patients with gout have arterial dysfunction and systemic inflammation, even during intercritical episodes, which may be markers of future adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We conducted a prospective observational study to assess whether initiating guideline-concordant gout therapy with colchicine and a urate-lowering xanthine oxidase inhibitor (XOI) improves arterial function and reduces inflammation. METHODS:Thirty-eight untreated gout patients meeting American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for gout and ACR guidelines for initiating urate-lowering therapy (ULT) received colchicine (0.6 mg twice daily, or once daily for tolerance) and an XOI (allopurinol or febuxostat) titrated to ACR guideline-defined serum urate (sU) target. Treatment was begun during intercritical periods. The initiation of colchicine and XOI was staggered to permit assessment of a potential independent effect of colchicine. Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and nitrate-mediated dilation (NMD) assessed endothelium-dependent and endothelium-independent (smooth muscle) arterial responsiveness, respectively. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), IL-1β, IL-6, myeloperoxidase (MPO) concentrations, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) assessed systemic inflammation. RESULTS:Four weeks after achieving target sU concentration on colchicine plus an XOI, FMD was significantly improved (58% increase, p = 0.03). hsCRP, ESR, IL-1β, and IL-6 also all significantly improved (30%, 27%, 19.5%, and 18.8% decrease respectively; all p ≤ 0.03). Prior to addition of XOI, treatment with colchicine alone resulted in smaller numerical improvements in FMD, hsCRP, and ESR (20.7%, 8.9%, 13% reductions, respectively; all non-significant), but not IL-1β or IL-6. MPO and NMD did not change with therapy. We observed a moderate inverse correlation between hsCRP concentration and FMD responsiveness (R = - 0.41, p = 0.01). Subgroup analyses demonstrated improvement in FMD after achieving target sU concentration in patients without but not with established cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, particularly hypertension and hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSIONS:Initiating guideline-concordant gout treatment reduces intercritical systemic inflammation and improves endothelial-dependent arterial function, particularly in patients without established cardiovascular comorbidities.

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.