4.4 Review

The Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology consensus recommendations for the management of gout

期刊

CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 42, 期 8, 页码 2013-2027

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06578-9

关键词

Consensus; Gout; Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology; Hyperuricemia; Recommendations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gout is a common noncommunicable disease in Hong Kong, but its management is suboptimal. Treatment usually focuses on relieving symptoms rather than targeting serum urate levels, leading to complications. The Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology developed consensus recommendations through a Delphi exercise, which provide guidance on acute gout management, prophylaxis, hyperuricemia treatment, co-administration of medications, and lifestyle advice. This paper serves as a reference guide for healthcare providers dealing with patients at risk or already diagnosed with gout.
Gout is one of the most common noncommunicable diseases in Hong Kong. Although effective treatment options are readily available, the management of gout in Hong Kong remains suboptimal. Like other countries, the treatment goal in Hong Kong usually focuses on relieving symptoms of gout but not treating the serum urate level to target. As a result, patients with gout continue to suffer from the debilitating arthritis, as well as the renal, metabolic, and cardiovascular complications associated with gout. The Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology spearheaded the development of these consensus recommendations through a Delphi exercise that involved rheumatologists, primary care physicians, and other specialists in Hong Kong. Recommendations on acute gout management, gout prophylaxis, treatment of hyperuricemia and its precautions, co-administration of non-gout medications with urate-lowering therapy, and lifestyle advice have been included. This paper serves as a reference guide to all healthcare providers who see patients who are at risk and are known to have this chronic but treatable condition.

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