A Systematic Review of the Economic and Humanistic Burden of Gout.

BACKGROUND: Gout is a chronic and inflammatory form of arthritis that is often overlooked despite the associated pain caused by acute flares and associated joint damage caused by the development of debilitating tophi. The increasing burden of gout, due to an aging population and the increased prevalence of known risk factors for hyperuricaemia, means that there is a continued need for new and effective urate-lowering treatments. The evaluation of these treatments will require a comprehensive and comparative evidence base describing the economic and humanistic burden of gout, taken from the perspective of patients, the healthcare system, and wider society.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to review and summarise the current evidence of the disease burden related to chronic gout, assessed in terms of both cost and health-related quality of life (HRQL), and to identify key factors correlated with an increased burden. The overall aim is to support the economic evaluation of new treatments for gout, and to highlight key data gaps that may need further study and exploration.
METHODS: Relevant literature dating from January 2000 to July 2014 was sourced through searches of the MEDLINE database via PubMed and The Cochrane Library. Articles published in English and reporting either the economic burden (cost) or the humanistic burden (HRQL/utility) of gout were identified, and key data were extracted and summarised, with key themes and data gaps identified and discussed.
RESULTS: Of the 323 studies identified, 39 met the inclusion criteria, of which 17 and 26 were relevant to the economic and humanistic burden, respectively. The economic burden of gout varied according to numerous factors, most notably serum urate acid levels and number of flares and tophi, resulting in higher healthcare resource use most often attributed to hospitalisation and inpatient stay. The incremental direct cost of gout has been suggested in the range of US$3165 to US$5515 (2004 and 2005 values, respectively) climbing to US$10,222 to US$21,467 (2008 values) per annum where patients are experiencing regular acute flares and have tophi present. The humanistic burden of gout was largely due to physical disability and pain resulting from chronic clinical manifestations. Short Form 6 dimensions (SF-6D) assessed utility weights are estimated at 0.53 for a patient with severe gout (≥3 flares/year and tophi) compared with 0.73 for an asymptomatic gout patient with serum acid levels <6 mg/dl.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence confirms that gout has a growing overall prevalence and represents a significant burden in terms of both direct healthcare cost and HRQL outcomes. In light of this, effective urate-lowering treatments are likely to be valued if they can be clearly demonstrated to be both clinically effective and cost effective. Published data to support healthcare decision making in non-US countries with regards to treatments for gout are currently limited, which is a key limitation of the current evidence base. More research is also required to extend our understanding of the impact of gout on indirect costs, and a need also exists to develop a more comprehensive set of comparative HRQL utility assessments.