4.3 Article

Serum uric acid levels and the risk of flares among gout patients in a US managed care setting

期刊

CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 117-124

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1239193

关键词

Flares; gout; managed care; retrospective; serum uric acid

资金

  1. Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Serum uric acid (sUA) levels are causally associated with the risk of gout flares. Our aim was to assess the magnitude of the association and time to first flare among patients in a managed care setting. Research design and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data from a large US health plan. Patients were required to have evidence of gout based on medical and pharmacy claims between January 2009 and April 2012. The 12 months prior to the index gout claim were used to assess baseline sUA levels; risk of gout flares, stratified by baseline sUA levels, was examined for 2 years post-index. Risk of flare was modeled with Cox proportional hazards; time to first flare was assessed by Kaplan-Meier. Results: We identified 18,008 patients with gout and available baseline SUA levels (mg/dL). The hazard ratios for the risk of gout flares compared with sUA <5.0 were: 1.17 for sUA 5.0 to <6.0; 1.69 for sUA 6.0 to <7.0; 2.16 for sUA 7.0 to <8.0; 2.87 for sUA 8.0 to <9.0; and 3.85 for sUA >= 9.0 (all p <.001 except for sUA 5.0 to <6.0 cohort). The time to first flare was shorter for cohorts with higher baseline sUA levels. Conclusion: These findings confirm that higher sUA levels are associated with an increased risk of gout flares in a dose-response manner over 2 years. This data supports the need to treat to sUA target levels as recommended by recent gout care guidelines. Claims-based algorithms were used to identify gout flares; although this would not be expected to influence estimates of risk by sUA level, there may have been over- or under-estimation of the incidence of flares.

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

4.3
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