Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gout Classification Criteria: Update and Implications

  • Crystal Arthritis (MH Pillinger and SK Samuels, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Rheumatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis, with a rising prevalence and incidence worldwide. There has been a resurgence in gout research, fueled, in part, by a number of advances in pharmacologic therapy for gout. The conduct of clinical trials and other observational research in gout requires a standardized and validated means of assembling well-defined groups of patients with gout for such research purposes. Recently, an international collaborative effort that involved a data-driven process with state-of-the art methodology supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism led to publication of new gout classification criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Doherty M, Jansen TL, Nuki G, Pascual E, Perez-Ruiz F, Punzi L, et al. Gout: why is this curable disease so seldom cured? Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(11):1765–70. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Perez-Ruiz F, Urionaguena I, Carmona-Ortells L. Epidemiology and health-related services. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2016;28(2):104–9. doi:10.1097/BOR.0000000000000258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clarson LE, Chandratre P, Hider SL, Belcher J, Heneghan C, Roddy E, et al. Increased cardiovascular mortality associated with gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015;22(3):335–43. doi:10.1177/2047487313514895.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu SC, Xia L, Zhang J, Lu XH, Hu DK, Zhang HT, et al. Gout and risk of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(7), e0134088. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134088.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(3):895–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gout. In: Kellgren JH, Jeffery MR, Ball JF, editors. The epidemiology of chronic rheumatism. Vol. I. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific; 1963. p. 327.

  7. Decker JL. Report from the subcommittee on diagnostic criteria for gout. In: Bennett PH, Wood PHN, editors. Population studies of the rheumatic diseases. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. New York: Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica Foundation; 1968; 1966. p. 385–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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(10):1748–53. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ket154. This paper discusses in details the rationale for developing new and validated classification criteria for gout.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Neogi T, Jansen TL, Dalbeth N, Fransen J, Schumacher HR, Berendsen D, et al. Gout Classification Criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67(10):2557–68. doi:10.1002/art.39254. The jointly published 2015 ACR-EULAR Gout Classification Criteria.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Neogi T, Jansen TL, Dalbeth N, Fransen J, Schumacher HR, Berendsen D, et al. Gout classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:1789–98. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208237. The jointly published 2015 ACR-EULAR Gout Classification Criteria.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Aggarwal R, Ringold S, Khanna D, Neogi T, Johnson SR, Miller A, et al. Distinctions between diagnostic and classification criteria? Arthritis Care Res. 2015;67(7):891–7. doi:10.1002/acr.22583. Reviews the differences between classification criteria and diagnosis.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Taylor WJ, Fransen J. Distinctions between diagnostic and classification criteria: comment on the article by Aggarwal et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(1):149–50. doi:10.1002/acr.22671. Reviews the differences between classification criteria and diagnosis.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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(8):1743–8. doi:10.3899/jrheum.091385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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(13):1120–6. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. 2016;75(1):178–82. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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(1):22–4. doi:10.1097/RHU.0b013e3181945b79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nakayama DA, Barthelemy C, Carrera G, Lightfoot Jr RW, Wortmann RL. Tophaceous gout: a clinical and radiographic assessment. Arthritis Rheum. 1984;27(4):468–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuo CF, Grainge MJ, Zhang W, Doherty M. Global epidemiology of gout: prevalence, incidence and risk factors. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2015;11(11):649–62. doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2015.91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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(10):3136–41. doi:10.1002/art.30520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III 1988–94) reference manuals and reports [CD-ROM]. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics. 1996.

  21. 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(4):661–7. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Klemp P, Stansfield SA, Castle B, Robertson MC. Gout is on the increase in New Zealand. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(1):22–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Winnard D, Wright C, Taylor WJ, Jackson G, Te Karu L, Gow PJ, et al. National prevalence of gout derived from administrative health data in Aotearoa New Zealand. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51(5):901–9. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ker361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stamp LK, Wells JE, Pitama S, Faatoese A, Doughty RN, Whalley G, et al. Hyperuricaemia and gout in New Zealand rural and urban Maori and non-Maori communities. Intern Med J. 2013;43(6):678–84. doi:10.1111/imj.12062.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wijnands JM, Viechtbauer W, Thevissen K, Arts IC, Dagnelie PC, Stehouwer CD, et al. Determinants of the prevalence of gout in the general population: a systematic review and meta-regression. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30(1):19–33. doi:10.1007/s10654-014-9927-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Karis E, Crittenden DB, Pillinger MH. Hyperuricemia, gout, and related comorbidities: cause and effect on a two-way street. South Med J. 2014;107(4):235–41. doi:10.1097/SMJ.0000000000000082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhu Y, Pandya BJ, Choi HK. Comorbidities of gout and hyperuricemia in the US general population: NHANES 2007-2008. Am J Med. 2012;125(7):679–87 e1. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.09.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Scire CA, Manara M, Cimmino MA, Govoni M, Salaffi F, Punzi L, et al. Gout impacts on function and health-related quality of life beyond associated risk factors and medical conditions: results from the KING observational study of the Italian Society for Rheumatology (SIR). Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15(5):R101. doi:10.1186/ar4281.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Shields GE, Beard SM. A Systematic Review of the Economic and Humanistic Burden of Gout. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(10):1029–47. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0288-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chandratre P, Roddy E, Clarson L, Richardson J, Hider SL, Mallen CD. Health-related quality of life in gout: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52(11):2031–40. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ket265.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Han GM, Michaud K, Yu F, Watanabe-Galloway S, Mikuls TR. The increasing public health burden of arthritis, other rheumatic conditions, and comorbidity: results from a statewide health surveillance system, 2007 to 2012. Arthritis Care Res. 2016. doi:10.1002/acr.22856.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Robinson PC, Merriman TR, Herbison P, Highton J. Hospital admissions associated with gout and their comorbidities in New Zealand and England 1999-2009. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52(1):118–26. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kes253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Neogi T. Clinical practice. Gout. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(5):443–52. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1001124.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Robinson PC, Dalbeth N. Advances in pharmacotherapy for the treatment of gout. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015;16(4):533–46. doi:10.1517/14656566.2015.997213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dumusc A, So A. Interleukin-1 as a therapeutic target in gout. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2015;27(2):156–63. doi:10.1097/BOR.0000000000000143.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Durcan L, Grainger R, Keen HI, Taylor WJ, Dalbeth N. Imaging as a potential outcome measure in gout studies: a systematic literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.09.008.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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(2):516–24. doi:10.1148/radiol.11102485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. McQueen FM, Doyle A, Dalbeth N. Imaging in gout--what can we learn from MRI, CT, DECT and US? Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13(6):246. doi:10.1186/ar3489.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 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. 2015;74(10):1868–74. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-205431. Represents some of the work performed during the development of the 2015 ACR-EULAR Gout Classification Criteria.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Taylor WJ, Fransen J, Dalbeth N, Neogi T, Ralph Schumacher H, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic Arthrocentesis for Suspicion of Gout Is Safe and Well Tolerated. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(1):150–3. doi:10.3899/jrheum.150684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roddy E, Zhang W, Doherty M. Concordance of the management of chronic gout in a UK primary-care population with the EULAR gout recommendations. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(10):1311–5. doi:10.1136/ard.2007.070755.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Choi HK, Atkinson K, Karlson EW, Willett W, Curhan G. Purine-rich foods, dairy and protein intake, and the risk of gout in men. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(11):1093–103. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa035700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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. J Rheumatol. 2013;40(4):498–505. doi:10.3899/jrheum.121037. Represents some of the work performed during the development of the 2015 ACR-EULAR Gout Classification Criteria.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Taylor WJ, Fransen J, Jansen TL, Dalbeth N, Schumacher HR, Brown M, et al. Study for Updated Gout Classification Criteria: identification of features to classify gout. Arthritis Care Res. 2015;67(9):1304–15. doi:10.1002/acr.22585. Represents some of the work performed during the development of the 2015 ACR-EULAR Gout Classification Criteria.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-eular.2951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hansen P, Ombler F. A new method for scoring additive multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal. 2008;15(3-4):87–107. Outlines the theory behind the conjoint analytic methodology used in the development of several recent classification criteria efforts by the ACR and EULAR.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Taylor WJ. Pros and cons of conjoint analysis of discrete choice experiments to define classification and response criteria in rheumatology. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2016;28(2):117–21. doi:10.1097/BOR.0000000000000259. Provides a review of the experience in using discrete choice experiments in various applications of relevance to rheumatology, including the 2015 ACR-EULAR Gout Classification Criteria.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 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(9):2582–91. doi:10.1002/art.27580.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 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(6):706–14. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. June RR, Aggarwal R. The use and abuse of diagnostic/classification criteria. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014;28(6):921–34. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2015.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dr. Vargas-Santos received a fellowship funding from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation of Brazil. Dr. Neogi’s work was supported by NIH grant AR 47785.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Epidemiology Research and Training Unit, Boston University School of Medicine, X building, Suite 200, 650 Albany Street, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Ana Beatriz Vargas-Santos & Tuhina Neogi

  2. Department of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, PO Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand

    William J. Taylor

Authors
  1. Ana Beatriz Vargas-Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William J. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tuhina Neogi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuhina Neogi.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

ABVS and WJT declare that they have no conflicts of interest. TN reports that she was the ACR-PI of the 2015 ACR-EULAR Gout Classification Criteria report.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and were in compliance with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Crystal Arthritis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vargas-Santos, A.B., Taylor, W.J. & Neogi, T. Gout Classification Criteria: Update and Implications. Curr Rheumatol Rep 18, 46 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-016-0594-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-016-0594-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation