2015 Gout Classification Criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative

Tuhina Neogi, Tim L Th A Jansen, Nicola Dalbeth, Jaap Fransen, H Ralph Schumacher, Dianne Berendsen, Melanie Brown, Hyon Choi, N Lawrence Edwards, Hein J E M Janssens, Frédéric Lioté, Raymond P Naden, George Nuki, Alexis Ogdie, Fernando Perez-Ruiz, Kenneth Saag, Jasvinder A Singh, John S Sundy, Anne-Kathrin Tausche, Janitzia Vazquez-Mellado, Steven A Yarows, William J Taylor, Tuhina Neogi, Tim L Th A Jansen, Nicola Dalbeth, Jaap Fransen, H Ralph Schumacher, Dianne Berendsen, Melanie Brown, Hyon Choi, N Lawrence Edwards, Hein J E M Janssens, Frédéric Lioté, Raymond P Naden, George Nuki, Alexis Ogdie, Fernando Perez-Ruiz, Kenneth Saag, Jasvinder A Singh, John S Sundy, Anne-Kathrin Tausche, Janitzia Vazquez-Mellado, Steven A Yarows, William J Taylor

Abstract

Objective: Existing criteria for the classification of gout have suboptimal sensitivity and/or specificity, and were developed at a time when advanced imaging was not available. The current effort was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for gout.

Methods: An international group of investigators, supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, conducted a systematic review of the literature on advanced imaging of gout, a diagnostic study in which the presence of monosodium urate monohydrate (MSU) crystals in synovial fluid or tophus was the gold standard, a ranking exercise of paper patient cases, and a multicriterion decision analysis exercise. These data formed the basis for developing the classification criteria, which were tested in an independent data set.

Results: The entry criterion for the new classification criteria requires the occurrence of at least 1 episode of peripheral joint or bursal swelling, pain, or tenderness. The presence of MSU crystals in a symptomatic joint/bursa (i.e., synovial fluid) or in a tophus is a sufficient criterion for classification of the subject as having gout, and does not require further scoring. The domains of the new classification criteria include clinical (pattern of joint/bursa involvement, characteristics and time course of symptomatic episodes), laboratory (serum urate, MSU-negative synovial fluid aspirate), and imaging (double-contour sign on ultrasound or urate on dual-energy computed tomography, radiographic gout-related erosion). The sensitivity and specificity of the criteria are high (92% and 89%, respectively).

Conclusion: The new classification criteria, developed using a data-driven and decision analytic approach, have excellent performance characteristics and incorporate current state-of-the-art evidence regarding gout.

© 2015 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology is published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the study process. The major steps taken to develop the new American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for classification of gout are outlined. SUGAR = Study for Updated Gout Classification Criteria.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Examples of tophus. The tophus is defined as a draining or chalk‐like subcutaneous nodule under transparent skin, often with overlying vascularity. Typical locations are the ear (A), the elbow (olecranon bursa) (B), and the finger pulps (C and D). Note the overlying vascularity in D.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Examples of imaging features included in the classification criteria. A, Double‐contour sign seen on ultrasonography. Left panel shows a longitudinal ultrasound image of the femoral articular cartilage; right panel shows a transverse ultrasound image of the femoral articular cartilage. Both images show hyperechoic enhancement over the surface of the hyaline cartilage (images kindly provided by Dr. Esperanza Naredo, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain). B, Urate deposition seen on dual‐energy computed tomography. Left panel shows urate deposition at the first and fifth metatarsophalangeal joints; right panel shows urate deposition within the Achilles tendon. C, Erosion, defined as a cortical break with sclerotic margin and overhanging edge, seen on conventional radiography of the first metatarsophalangeal joint.

References

    1. Zhu Y, Pandya BJ, Choi HK. Prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia in the US general population: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007–2008. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:3136–41.
    1. Richette P, Clerson P, Bouee S, Chales G, Doherty M, Flipo RM, et al. Identification of patients with gout: elaboration of a questionnaire for epidemiological studies. Ann Rheum Dis 2014. E‐pub ahead of print.
    1. Bardin T, Bouee S, Clerson P, Chales G, Doherty M, Flipo RM, et al. Prevalence of gout in the adult population of France in 2013 [abstract]. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73 Suppl 2:787–8.
    1. Annemans L, Spaepen E, Gaskin M, Bonnemaire M, Malier V, Gilbert T, et al. Gout in the UK and Germany: prevalence, comorbidities and management in general practice 2000‐2005. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:960–6.
    1. Kuo CF, Grainge MJ, Mallen C, Zhang W, Doherty M. Rising burden of gout in the UK but continuing suboptimal management: a nationwide population study. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:661–7.
    1. Mikuls TR, Farrar JT, Bilker WB, Fernandes S, Schumacher HR Jr, Saag KG. Gout epidemiology: results from the UK General Practice Research Database, 1990‐1999. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:267–72.
    1. Winnard D, Wright C, Jackson G, Gow P, Kerr A, McLachlan A, 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.
    1. Neogi T. Gout. N Engl J Med 2011;364:443–52.
    1. Johnson SR, Goek ON, Singh‐Grewal D, Vlad SC, Feldman BM, Felton DT, et al. Classification criteria in rheumatic diseases: a review of methodologic properties. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1119–33.
    1. Wallace SL, Robinson H, Masi AT, Decker JL, McCarty DJ, Yu TF. Preliminary criteria for the classification of the acute arthritis of primary gout. Arthritis Rheum 1977;20:895–900.
    1. Janssens HJ, Fransen J, van de Lisdonk EH, van Riel PL, van Weel C, Janssen M. A diagnostic rule for acute gouty arthritis in primary care without joint fluid analysis. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1120–6.
    1. Pelaez‐Ballestas I, Hernandez Cuevas C, Burgos‐Vargas R, Hernandez Roque L, Teran L, Espinoza J, et al. Diagnosis of chronic gout: evaluating the American College of Rheumatology proposal, European League Against Rheumatism recommendations, and clinical judgment. J Rheumatol 2010;37:1743–8.
    1. Kellgren JH, Jeffrey MR, Ball J. The epidemiology of chronic rheumatism. Vol. I Oxford: Blackwell Scientific; 1963. p. 326–7.
    1. Decker JL. Report from the subcommittee on diagnostic criteria for gout. In: Bennett PH, Wood PH, editors. Proceedings from the Third International Symposium; 1966 June 5‐10; New York, New York. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica Foundation; 1968:385–7.
    1. Taylor WJ, Fransen J, Dalbeth N, Neogi T, Schumacher HR, Brown M, et al. Performance of classification criteria for gout in early and established disease. Ann Rheum Dis 2014. E‐pub ahead of print.
    1. Malik A, Schumacher HR, Dinnella JE, Clayburne GM. Clinical diagnostic criteria for gout: comparison with the gold standard of synovial fluid crystal analysis. J Clin Rheumatol 2009;15:22–4.
    1. Harrold LR, Mazor KM, Negron A, Ogarek J, Firneno C, Yood RA. Primary care providers’ knowledge, beliefs and treatment practices for gout: results of a physician questionnaire. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013;52:1623–9.
    1. Pal B, Foxall M, Dysart T, Carey F, Whittaker M. How is gout managed in primary care? A review of current practice and proposed guidelines. Clin Rheumatol 2000;19:21–5.
    1. Dalbeth N, Fransen J, Jansen TL, Neogi T, Schumacher HR, Taylor WJ. New classification criteria for gout: a framework for progress. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013;52:1748–53.
    1. Prowse RL, Dalbeth N, Kavanaugh A, Adebajo AO, Gaffo AL, Terkeltaub R, et al. A Delphi exercise to identify characteristic features of gout—opinions from patients and physicians, the first stage in developing new classification criteria [published erratum appears in J Rheumatol 2013;40:1634]. J Rheumatol 2013;40:498–505.
    1. Taylor W, Fransen J, Jansen TL, Dalbeth N, Schumacher HR, Brown M, et al. Study for Updated Gout Classification Criteria (SUGAR): identification of features to classify gout. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2015. E‐pub ahead of print.
    1. Berendsen D, Jansen TL, Taylor W, Neogi T, Fransen J, Pascual E, et al. A critical appraisal of the competence of crystal identification by rheumatologists [abstract]. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72 Suppl 3:A981–2.
    1. Ogdie A, Taylor WJ, Weatherall M, Fransen J, Jansen TL, Neogi T, et al. Imaging modalities for the classification of gout: systematic literature review and meta‐analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 2014. E‐pub ahead of print.
    1. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO III, et al. 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:2569–81.
    1. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO III, et al. 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1580–8.
    1. Van den Hoogen F, Khanna D, Fransen J, Johnson SR, Baron M, Tyndall A, et al. 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:2737–47.
    1. Van den Hoogen F, Khanna D, Fransen J, Johnson SR, Baron M, Tyndall A, et al. 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1747–55.
    1. Neogi T, Aletaha D, Silman AJ, Naden RL, Felson DT, Aggarwal R, et al. The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: phase 2 methodological report. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:2582–91.
    1. Johnson SR, Naden RP, Fransen J, van den Hoogen F, Pope JE, Baron M, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis methods with 1000Minds for developing systemic sclerosis classification criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:706–14.
    1. Hansen P, Ombler F. A new method for scoring additive multi‐attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. J Multi‐Crit Decis Anal 2008;15:87–107.
    1. Filippucci E, Di Geso L, Grassi W. Tips and tricks to recognize microcrystalline arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012;51 Suppl 7:vii18–21.
    1. Naredo E, Uson J, Jimenez‐Palop M, Martinez A, Vicente E, Brito E, et al. Ultrasound‐detected musculoskeletal urate crystal deposition: which joints and what findings should be assessed for diagnosing gout? Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1522–8.
    1. Glazebrook KN, Guimaraes LS, Murthy NS, Black DF, Bongartz T, Manek NJ, et al. Identification of intraarticular and periarticular uric acid crystals with dual‐energy CT: initial evaluation. Radiology 2011;261:516–24.
    1. Mallinson PI, Coupal T, Reisinger C, Chou H, Munk PL, Nicolaou S, et al. Artifacts in dual‐energy CT gout protocol: a review of 50 suspected cases with an artifact identification guide. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:W103–9.
    1. Aggarwal R, Ringold S, Khanna D, Neogi T, Johnson SR, Miller A, et al. Distinctions between diagnostic and classification criteria? Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2015;67:891–7.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj