View Item 

Show simple item record

Evaluation of Proposed Criteria for Remission and Evidence‐Based Development of Criteria for Complete Response in Patients With Chronic Refractory Gout
dc.contributor.authorSchlesinger, Naomi
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, N. Lawrence
dc.contributor.authorKhanna, Puja P.
dc.contributor.authorYeo, Anthony E.
dc.contributor.authorLipsky, Peter E.
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-20T17:04:58Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHS
dc.date.available2019-06-20T17:04:58Z
dc.date.issued2019-06
dc.identifier.citationSchlesinger, Naomi; Edwards, N. Lawrence; Khanna, Puja P.; Yeo, Anthony E.; Lipsky, Peter E. (2019). "Evaluation of Proposed Criteria for Remission and Evidence‐Based Development of Criteria for Complete Response in Patients With Chronic Refractory Gout." ACR Open Rheumatology 1(4): 236-243.
dc.identifier.issn2578-5745
dc.identifier.issn2578-5745
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/149519
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.titleEvaluation of Proposed Criteria for Remission and Evidence‐Based Development of Criteria for Complete Response in Patients With Chronic Refractory Gout
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelRheumatology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149519/1/acr21025.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149519/2/acr21025_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/acr2.1025
dc.identifier.sourceACR Open Rheumatology
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBecker MA, Baraf HS, Yood RA, Dillon A, Vázquez‐Mellado J, Ottery FD, et al. Long‐term safety of pegloticase in chronic gout refractory to conventional treatment. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: 1469 – 74.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHench PS. The diagnosis of gout and gouty arthritis. J Lab Clin Med 1936; 22: 48 – 55.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMandell BF, Yeo A, Lipsky PE. Tophus resolution in patients with chronic refractory gout who have persistent urate‐lowering responses to pegloticase. Arthritis Res Ther 2018; 20: 286.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerez‐Ruiz F, Calabozo M, Pijoan JI, Herrero‐Beites AM, Ruibal A. Effect of urate‐lowering therapy on the velocity of size reduction of tophi in chronic gout. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47: 356 – 60.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScirè CA, Carrara G, Viroli C, Cimmino MA, Taylor WJ, Manara M, et al. Development and first validation of a disease activity score for gout. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016; 68: 1530 – 7.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLa‐Crette J, Jenkins W, Fernandes G, Valdes AM, Doherty M, Abhishek A. First validation of the gout activity score against gout impact scale in a primary care based gout cohort. Joint Bone Spine 2018; 85: 323 – 5.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChinchilla SP, Doherty M, Abhishek A. Gout Activity Score has predictive validity and is sensitive to change: results from the Nottingham Gout Treatment Trial (Phase II). Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019. E‐pub ahead of print.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDe Lautour H, Taylor WJ, Adebajo A, Alten R, Burgos‐Vargas R, Chapman P, et al. Development of preliminary remission criteria for gout using Delphi and 1000Minds consensus exercises. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016; 68: 667 – 72.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSundy JS, Baraf HS, Yood RA, Edwards NL, Gutierrez‐Urena SR, Treadwell EL, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of pegloticase for the treatment of chronic gout in patients refractory to conventional treatment: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2011; 306: 711 – 20.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaroli AN, Waltrip R, Alton M, Baraf HS, Huang B, Rehrig C, et al. First application of computer‐assisted analysis of digital photographs for assessing tophus response: phase 3 studies of pegloticase in treatment failure gout. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 60 Suppl: S1111.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhanna P, Khanna D, Storgard C, Baumgartner S, Morlock R. A world of hurt: failure to achieve treatment goals in patients with gout requires a paradigm shift. Postgrad Med 2016; 128: 34 – 40.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDe Lautour H, Dalbeth N, Taylor WJ. Outcome measures for gout clinical trials: a summary of progress. Curr Treat Opt Rheumatol 2015; 1: 156 – 66.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGaffo AL, Dalbeth N, Saag KG, Singh JA, Rahn EJ, Mudano AS, et al. Brief report: validation of a definition for flare in patients with established gout. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018; 70: 462 – 67.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaylor WJ, Brown M, Aati O, Weatherall M, Dalbeth N. Do patient preferences for core outcome domains for chronic gout studies support the validity of composite response criteria? [original article]. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2013; 65: 1259 – 64.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBecker MA, Schumacher HR, Benjamin KL, Gorevic P, Greenwald M, Fessel J, et al. Quality of life and disability in patients with treatment‐failure gout. J Rheumatol 2009; 36: 1041 – 8.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHirsch JD, Terkeltaub R, Khanna D, Singh J, Sarkin A, Shieh M, et al. Gout disease‐specific quality of life and the association with gout characteristics. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2010; 2010: 1 – 8.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKiltz U, Smolen J, Bardin T, Cohen Solal A, Dalbeth N, Doherty M, et al. Treat‐to‐target (T2T) recommendations for gout. Ann Rheum Dis 2016; 76: 632 – 8.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAtar D, Birkeland KI, Uhlig T. ‘Treat to target’: moving targets from hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes to rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69: 629 – 30.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmolen JS. Treat‐to‐target as an approach in inflammatory arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2016; 28: 297 – 302.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerez‐Ruiz F. Treating to target: a strategy to cure gout. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009; 48 Suppl 2: ii9 – 14.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJansen TL. Treat to target in gout by combining two modes of action. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2014; 53: 2131 – 3.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeogi T, Mikuls TR. To treat or not to treat (to target) in gout. Ann Intern Med 2017; 166: 71 – 2.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhanna D, Fitzgerald JD, Khanna PP, Bae S, Singh MK, Neogi T, et al. 2012 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout. Part 1: systematic nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapeutic approaches to hyperuricemia. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64: 1431 – 46.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichette P, Doherty M, Pascual E, Barskova V, Becce F, Castañeda‐Sanabria J, et al. 2016 updated EULAR evidence‐based recommendations for the management of gout. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 29 – 42.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSivera F, Andrés M, Carmona L, Kydd AS, Moi J, Seth R, et al. Multinational evidence‐based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout: integrating systematic literature review and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 328 – 35.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchlesinger N, Norquist JM, Watson DJ. Serum urate during acute gout [published erratum appears in J Rheumatol 2009;36:1851]. J Rheumatol 2009; 36: 1287 – 9.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorillon MB, Stamp L, Taylor W, Fransen J, Dalbeth N, Singh JA, et al. Using serum urate as a validated surrogate end point for flares in patients with gout: protocol for a systematic review and meta‐regression analysis. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e012026.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaylor WJ, Schumacher HR Jr, Baraf HS, Chapman P, Stamp L, Doherty M, et al. A modified Delphi exercise to determine the extent of consensus with OMERACT outcome domains for studies of acute and chronic gout. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67: 888 – 91.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGutman AB. The past four decades of progress in the knowledge of gout, with an assessment of the present status. Arthritis Rheum 1973; 16: 431 – 45.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
acr21025.pdf
Size:
264.3KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
acr21025_am.pdf
Size:
272.6KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.