Study for Updated Gout Classification Criteria: Identification of Features to Classify Gout

William J. Taylor(University of Otago), Jaap Fransen(Radboud University Nijmegen), Tim Jansen(Radboud University Nijmegen), Nicola Dalbeth(University of Auckland), H. Ralph Schumacher(Philadelphia VA Medical Center), Melanie Brown(University of Otago), Worawit Louthrenoo(Chiang Mai University), Janitzia Vázquez‐Mellado(Hospital General de México), М. С. Елисеев(Association of Rheumatologists of Russia), Géraldine McCarthy(Mater Misericordiae University Hospital), Lisa K. Stamp(University of Otago), Fernando Pérez-Ruiz(BioCruces Health research Institute), Francisca Sivera(Hospital General de Elda), Hang‐Korng Ea(Inserm), Martijn Gerritsen(Westfriesgasthuis), Carlo Alberto Scirè(Società Italiana di Reumatologia), Lorenzo Cavagna(University of Pavia), Ching-Tsai Lin(Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital), Yin‐Yi Chou(Taichung Veterans General Hospital), A.-K. Tausche(University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus), Ana Beatriz Vargas‐Santos(Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro), M. Janssen(Rijnstate Hospital), Jiunn‐Horng Chen(China Medical University), Ole Slot(Glostrup Hospital), Marco A. Cimmino(University of Genoa), Till Uhlig(Diakonhjemmet Hospital), Tuhina Neogi(Boston University)
Arthritis Care & Research
March 16, 2015
Cited by 173Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine which clinical, laboratory, and imaging features most accurately distinguished gout from non-gout. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of consecutive rheumatology clinic patients with ≥1 swollen joint or subcutaneous tophus. Gout was defined by synovial fluid or tophus aspirate microscopy by certified examiners in all patients. The sample was randomly divided into a model development (two-thirds) and test sample (one-third). Univariate and multivariate association between clinical features and monosodium urate-defined gout was determined using logistic regression modeling. Shrinkage of regression weights was performed to prevent overfitting of the final model. Latent class analysis was conducted to identify patterns of joint involvement. RESULTS: In total, 983 patients were included. Gout was present in 509 (52%). In the development sample (n = 653), the following features were selected for the final model: joint erythema (multivariate odds ratio [OR] 2.13), difficulty walking (multivariate OR 7.34), time to maximal pain <24 hours (multivariate OR 1.32), resolution by 2 weeks (multivariate OR 3.58), tophus (multivariate OR 7.29), first metatarsophalangeal (MTP1) joint ever involved (multivariate OR 2.30), location of currently tender joints in other foot/ankle (multivariate OR 2.28) or MTP1 joint (multivariate OR 2.82), serum urate level >6 mg/dl (0.36 mmoles/liter; multivariate OR 3.35), ultrasound double contour sign (multivariate OR 7.23), and radiograph erosion or cyst (multivariate OR 2.49). The final model performed adequately in the test set, with no evidence of misfit, high discrimination, and predictive ability. MTP1 joint involvement was the most common joint pattern (39.4%) in gout cases. CONCLUSION: Ten key discriminating features have been identified for further evaluation for new gout classification criteria. Ultrasound findings and degree of uricemia add discriminating value, and will significantly contribute to more accurate classification criteria.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis