4.4 Review

Asymptomatic hyperuricemia: is it really asymptomatic?

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 71-79

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000679

关键词

cardiovascular disease; gout; hyperuricemia; renal disease; urate

资金

  1. Clinical and Translational Science Award [1UL1TR001445]
  2. National Center for the Advancement of Translational Science, National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Hyperuricemia is highly prevalent, affecting approximately 38 million individuals in the United States. However, the significance of asymptomatic hyperuricemia - hyperuricemia in the absence of gout - continues to be debated. Recent findings Asymptomatic hyperuricemia results in monosodium urate crystal deposition in tissues, which may promote chronic inflammation. Intracellularly, hyperuricemia inhibits the master regulator adenosine monophosphate (AMP)-associated protein kinase and may condition innate immune responses through durable epigenetic modifications. At the population level, asymptomatic hyperuricemia is associated with multiple comorbidities, including hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, and diabetes; limitations of these studies include that most are retrospective and some do not rigorously distinguish between asymptomatic hyperuricemia and gout. Treatment studies suggest that urate lowering may reduce the risk of incidence or progression of some of these comorbidities; unfortunately, many of these treatment studies are small or flawed, and not all study results are consistent. Accumulating evidence suggests that asymptomatic hyperuricemia contributes to the comorbidities with which it associates and that proper asymptomatic hyperuricemia treatment may reduce future risk. Additional prospective trials are needed to definitely establish causality and support decision-making as to whether, and which patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia would warrant urate-lowering treatment.

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

4.4
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