ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 0467

Assessing the Extent of Lumbosacral Spinal Urate Deposition in Patients with Tophaceous and Nontophaceous Gout Compared with Non-gout Controls Using Dual-Energy CT (DECT)

Michael Toprover1, Michael Mechlin1, Anastasia Slobodnick1, Virginia Pike1, Cheongeun Oh1, Claudine Davis1, Theodore Fields2, Fabio Becce3 and Michael Pillinger4, 1NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, 2Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 3Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland, 4New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York,, NY

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2021

Keywords: Computed tomography (CT), gout

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Saturday, November 6, 2021

Title: Abstracts: Imaging of Rheumatic Diseases (0466–0469)

Session Type: Abstract Session

Session Time: 10:45AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Axial gout involvement was first reported in 1950 (1). Over 100 cases have subsequently been published. Reported cases have presented as acute back pain, cord compression, and/or neurologic symptoms, with diagnosis made by invasive procedure (surgical excision or biopsy). However, the true extent of MSU deposition in the spine of gout patients, including asymptomatic patients or those with non-specific symptoms, is unknown and likely higher. We used DECT to determine the extent of MSU deposition in the lumbosacral spines of patients with gout, with and without tophi, compared to controls without gout.

Methods: We recruited controls, nontophaceous, and tophaceous gout patients, age 45-80. Individuals with CPPD disease, RA, spondyloarthropathy, active spinal malignancy, or on urate lowering treatment (ULT) ≥ 6 months were excluded. Gout subjects met 2015 ACR gout classification criteria, with entry serum urate (sU) of >6.8 mg/dL ( >6.0 mg/dL if on ULT for < 6 months). Demographics, gout history, Aberdeen back pain scale, sU, ESR, and CRP were collected. Subjects underwent DECT of the lumbosacral spine (LS) to assess for MSU deposition.

Results: 75 subjects were enrolled, and 72 completed the study (1 nontophaceous gout patient lost to follow-up prior to DECT, 2 tophaceous excluded after sU at time of DECT found to be < 6.0mg/dL). All groups were similar in age in years (controls 61.8±3.8, nontophaceous 64.0±6.1, tophaceous 60.4±11.0, p=0.81) but differed in BMI (controls 28.3±6.5 kg/m2, nontophaceous 34.1±7.2 kg/m2, tophaceous 29.5±4.5 kg/m2, p=0.03) and creatinine (controls 1.0±0.2 mg/dL, nontophaceous 1.4±0.7 mg/dL, tophaceous 1.4±0.6 mg/dL, p< 0.05). Mean sU and ESR were higher in gout subjects (sU-controls 5.3±1 mg/dL, nontophaceous 8.5±1.7 mg/dL, tophaceous 8.5±1.6 mg/dL, p< 0.05; ESR-controls 13.7±13.8 mm/h, nontophaceous 26.5±19.4 mm/h, tophaceous 25.1±15.7 mm/h, p< 0.05). Using standard DECT settings for MSU visualization, gout patients had larger MSU volumes than controls (controls 2.2±1.2 cm3, all gout 5.23±6.9 cm3; p =0.03). Tophaceous patients had numerically greater MSU deposition compared with nontophaceous (6.0±8.9 cm3, vs 4.4±4.3 cm3, ns). Reanalysis of a subset of scans using highly specific settings to eliminate artifact reduced the number of subjects with MSU signal but confirmed greater prevalence of deposition among gout patients (n=29; controls with deposition 0/9, nontophaceous with deposition 1/11, tophaceous with deposition 2/9). Back pain was also more common among gout patients. No subject had frank tophi on spinal DECT.

Conclusion: Gout patients have significantly greater intercritical inflammation and LS MSU deposition than controls, and trend toward greater deposition among patients with tophi. Preliminary results using the most stringent DECT threshold settings suggests MSU differences are not artifact. The complete data set is currently undergoing evaluation and the full results will be presented.

Supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Horizon Pharma.

References:
1. Toprover M, Krasnokutsky S, Pillinger MH. Gout in the Spine: Imaging, Diagnosis, and Outcomes. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2015;17(12):70.

Figure 1: Mean sU and DECT LS volume (control vs all gout)

Figure 2: Mean sU and DECT LS volume (nontophaceous gout vs tophaceous gout)

Figure 3: Comparison of Control vs Tophaceous Gout Patient LS DECT, green represents MSU deposition.


Disclosures: M. Toprover, Horizon Pharma, 2; M. Mechlin, Siemens, 6; A. Slobodnick, None; V. Pike, None; C. Oh, None; C. Davis, None; T. Fields, Horizon Pharmaceuticals, 1, Avion Pharmaceuticals, 1; F. Becce, Horizon, 2, Siemens Healthineers, 5; M. Pillinger, Horizon Therapeutics, 1, 5, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Toprover M, Mechlin M, Slobodnick A, Pike V, Oh C, Davis C, Fields T, Becce F, Pillinger M. Assessing the Extent of Lumbosacral Spinal Urate Deposition in Patients with Tophaceous and Nontophaceous Gout Compared with Non-gout Controls Using Dual-Energy CT (DECT) [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021; 73 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/assessing-the-extent-of-lumbosacral-spinal-urate-deposition-in-patients-with-tophaceous-and-nontophaceous-gout-compared-with-non-gout-controls-using-dual-energy-ct-dect/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2021

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/assessing-the-extent-of-lumbosacral-spinal-urate-deposition-in-patients-with-tophaceous-and-nontophaceous-gout-compared-with-non-gout-controls-using-dual-energy-ct-dect/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology