4.7 Article

Ultrasound evaluation in follow-up of urate-lowering therapy in gout: the USEFUL study

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 58, 期 3, 页码 410-417

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/key303

关键词

ultrasound; gout; urate lowering therapy; management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. We aimed to determine the ability of ultrasonography (US) to show disappearance of urate deposits in gouty patients requiring urate-lowering therapy (ULT). Methods. We performed a 6-month multicentre prospective study including patients with: proven gout; presence of US features of gout (tophus and/or double contour sign) at the knee and/or first metatarsophalangeal joints; and no current ULT. US evaluations were performed at baseline and at months 3 and 6 (M3, M6) after starting ULT. Outcomes were: the change in US features of gout at M6 according to final (M6) serum urate (SU) level (high, > 360 mu mol/l, i.e. > 6 mg/dl; low, 300-360 mu mol/l i.e. 5-6 mg/dl; very low, < 300 mu mol/l, i.e. < 5 mg/dl); and correlation between changed US features and final SU level. Results. We included 79 gouty patients (mean +/- S.D., age 61.8 (14) years, 91% males, disease duration 6.3 (6.1) years). Baseline SU level was 530 +/- 97 mu mol/l (i.e. 8.9 mg/dl +/- 1.6mg/dl). At least one US tophus and double contour sign was observed in 74 (94%) and 68 (86%) patients, respectively. Among the 67 completers at M6, 18 and 39 achieved a very low and low SU level, respectively. We found a significant decrease in US features of gout among patients with the lowest SU level (P < 0.001). Final M6 SU level was positively correlated with decreased size of tophus (r = 0.54 [95% CI: 0.34, 0.70], P < 0.0001), and inversely correlated with proportion of double contour sign disappearance (r=-0.59 [-0.74, -0.40]). Conclusion. US can show decreased urate deposition after ULT, which is correlated with decreased SU level. The responsiveness of US in gout is demonstrated and can be useful for gout follow-up and adherence to ULT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据