3.8 Article

Italian Society of Rheumatology recommendations for the management of gout

期刊

REUMATISMO
卷 65, 期 1, 页码 4-21

出版社

PAGEPRESS PUBL
DOI: 10.4081/reumatismo.2013.4

关键词

Gout; treatment; recommendations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Gout is the most common arthritis in adults. Despite the availability of valid therapeutic options, the management of patients with gout is still suboptimal. The Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR) aimed to update, adapt to national contest and disseminate the 2006 EULAR recommendations for the management of gout. Methods: The multidisciplinary group of experts included rheumatologists, general practitioners, internists, geriatricians, nephrologists, cardiologists and evidence-based medicine experts. To maintain consistency with EULAR recommendations, a similar methodology was utilized by the Italian group. The original propositions were translated in Italian and priority research queries were identified through a Delphi consensus approach. A systematic search was conducted for selected queries. Efficacy and safety data on drugs reported in RCTs were combined in a meta-analysis where feasible. The strength of recommendation was measured by utilising the EULAR ordinal and visual analogue scales. Results: The original 12 propositions were translated and adapted to Italian context. Further evidences were collected about the role of diet in the non-pharmacological treatment of gout and the efficacy of oral corticosteroids and low-dose colchicine in the management of acute attacks. Statements concerning uricosuric treatments were withdrawn and replaced with a proposition focused on a new urate lowering agent, febuxostat. A research agenda was developed to identify topics still not adequately investigated concerning the management of gout. Conclusions: The SIR has developed updated recommendations for the management of gout adapted to the Italian healthcare system. Their implementation in clinical practice is expected to improve the management of patients with gout.

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

3.8
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