ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meeting Abstracts
    • All Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2026
    • PRSYM 2026
    • ACR Convergence 2025
    • Download Abstract Supplements
  • Keyword Index
  • My Favorites
    • View & print my favorites
  • Search

Home » Meeting Abstracts » ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting 2018

Abstract Number: 2241

What Can Variation in Clinical Practice Teach Us about Treatment Strategies for Patients with Gout?

Ritch te Kampe1, Caroline van Durme1, Matthijs Janssen2, Annelies Boonen1 and Tim Jansen2, 1Department of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands, Maastricht, Netherlands, 2Department of Rheumatology, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, The Netherlands, Venlo, Netherlands

Share on X (Twitter) Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Email
Print

Meeting: ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting 2018

Keywords: combination therapies, gout, shared dicision making and treatment guidlelines

Session Information

Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Title: Metabolic and Crystal Arthropathies – Basic and Clinical Science Poster II

Session Type: ACR Poster Session C

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: To improve quality of care for patients with gout, two hospitals in the Netherlands initiated a protocolized gout clinic. One clinic adopted a patient-centred (PC-) strategy – emphasizing a shared decision based on serum uric acid (sUA) and patient satisfaction with gout control – and the other clinic adopted a strict sUA (≤0.30 mmol/L) target (UA-) strategy, with early combination of xanthine oxidation inhibitors (allopurinol) with uricosurics if the target was not reached and fractional uric acid excretion was below 4% (two modes of action (2MoA)).

Methods: Patients newly diagnosed with gout by the rheumatologist and having a follow-up between 9-15 months after the first visit were included. Co-primary outcomes were the proportion of patients reaching a sUA ≤0.36 mmol/L, and the proportion of patients free of flares. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with a sUA ≤0.30 mmol/L, requiring treatment intensification beyond allopurinol (and especially 2MoA), and experiencing adverse events. Independent t-tests or chi-square were used to test differences in outcomes between strategies, and logistic regressions to adjust the effect of center on outcomes for baseline confounders.

Results: In total, 255 and 142 new patients attended the UA and PC-strategy clinic, respectively, for the first time. Of the initial patients, 29/255 (11%) vs 13/142 (9%) patients stopped prematurely clinical follow-up and 6/255 (2%) vs 11/142 (8%) patients died. Finally, 126 and 86 patients had a follow-up assessment between 9-15 months after inclusion. Diagnosis of gout was further confirmed by ACR/EULAR classification criteria for 122/126 (97%) patients in the UA-strategy vs 51/86 (59%) patients in the PC-strategy (p<0.001), respectively. In the UA-strategy 105/126 (83%) patients compared to 63/86 (74%) patients in the PC-strategy (p=0.10), reached the threshold of ≤0.36 mmol/L and 58/126 (46%) vs 31/86 (36%) patients (p=0.15) were free of flares (table 1). In the UA-strategy 76/126 (60%) patients were on allopurinol monotherapy compared to 63/86 (73%) in those receiving the PC-strategy (p=0.05). 2MoA therapy was significantly more frequent in the UA-strategy (n=21 (17%) vs n=1 (1%), p<0.001), yet the number of registered adverse events was not different (n=25 (20%) vs n=20 (23%), p=0.55). After adjustment for baseline confounders, the UA-strategy had a slightly higher but non-siginifiant chance to reach sUA ≤0.36 mmol/L and to be free of flares, but required significantly more therapy intensification.

Conclusion: A strict UA-strategy resulted in a non-significant higher proportion of patients reaching the UA target (≤0.36 mmol/L) and free of flares.  This was accomplished with significant more therapy intensification from allopurinol monotherapy to 2MoA therapy, without a significant difference in adverse events.


Disclosure: R. te Kampe, None; C. van Durme, None; M. Janssen, None; A. Boonen, Celgene and Abbvie, 2,Janssen, Sandoz, Lilly, Novartis an UCB, 9; T. Jansen, AstraZeneca, 2,GRUNENTHAL, 8,ABBVIE, CELGENE, GRUNENTHAL, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

te Kampe R, van Durme C, Janssen M, Boonen A, Jansen T. What Can Variation in Clinical Practice Teach Us about Treatment Strategies for Patients with Gout? [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018; 70 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/what-can-variation-in-clinical-practice-teach-us-about-treatment-strategies-for-patients-with-gout/. Accessed .

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/what-can-variation-in-clinical-practice-teach-us-about-treatment-strategies-for-patients-with-gout/

My Favorites

Save and print abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract (must have cookies enabled in browser). See saved favorites.

Abstract Policies

  • ACR Convergence Abstract Embargo Policies
  • ACR Convergence Abstract Permissions & Reprints
  • PRSYM Abstract Policies

ACR Convergence. Where Rheumatology Meets

ACR Convergence 2026

Join us November 6-11 in Orlando, Florida.
See Registration Information

  • Contact ACR
  • Privacy Policy
  • ACR Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2026 American College of Rheumatology