Michael Chen-Xu1, Chio Yokose2, Sharan K Rai2, Michael H Pillinger3, Hyon K Choi2. 1. Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the current prevalence rates and decadal trends of gout and hyperuricemia in the US, as well as the prevalence of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) among gout patients, using 2007-2016 data from a nationally representative survey of American men and women (the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES]). METHODS: Using data from 5,467 participants in the NHANES 2015-2016, we estimated the most recent prevalence rates of gout and hyperuricemia. When the NHANES was conducted, all participants were asked about their history of gout (as diagnosed by a health professional) and medication use. Hyperuricemia was defined as having a serum urate level of >7.0 mg/dl in men and >5.7 mg/dl in women. We examined decadal trends in these estimates using data from the NHANES 2007-2016 and investigated ULT usage trends using the NHANES 2007-14 (the most recent data available to date). RESULTS: In 2015-2016, the prevalence of gout was 3.9% among adults in the US (9.2 million people), with 5.2% [5.9 million] in men and 2.7% [3.3 million] in women. Mean serum urate levels were 6.0 mg/dl in men and 4.8 mg/dl in women, and hyperuricemia prevalence rates were 20.2% and 20.0%, respectively. The prevalence rates of gout and hyperuricemia remained stable between 2007 and 2016 (P for trend > 0.05). The prevalence of ULT use among patients with gout was 33% in 2007-2014 and remained stable over time (P for trend > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this nationally representative survey sample of adults in the US, the prevalence rates of gout and hyperuricemia remained substantial, albeit unchanged, between 2007 and 2016. Despite these rates, only one-third of gout patients were receiving ULT.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the current prevalence rates and decadal trends of gout and hyperuricemia in the US, as well as the prevalence of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) among goutpatients, using 2007-2016 data from a nationally representative survey of American men and women (the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES]). METHODS: Using data from 5,467 participants in the NHANES 2015-2016, we estimated the most recent prevalence rates of gout and hyperuricemia. When the NHANES was conducted, all participants were asked about their history of gout (as diagnosed by a health professional) and medication use. Hyperuricemia was defined as having a serum urate level of >7.0 mg/dl in men and >5.7 mg/dl in women. We examined decadal trends in these estimates using data from the NHANES 2007-2016 and investigated ULT usage trends using the NHANES 2007-14 (the most recent data available to date). RESULTS: In 2015-2016, the prevalence of gout was 3.9% among adults in the US (9.2 million people), with 5.2% [5.9 million] in men and 2.7% [3.3 million] in women. Mean serum urate levels were 6.0 mg/dl in men and 4.8 mg/dl in women, and hyperuricemia prevalence rates were 20.2% and 20.0%, respectively. The prevalence rates of gout and hyperuricemia remained stable between 2007 and 2016 (P for trend > 0.05). The prevalence of ULT use among patients with gout was 33% in 2007-2014 and remained stable over time (P for trend > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this nationally representative survey sample of adults in the US, the prevalence rates of gout and hyperuricemia remained substantial, albeit unchanged, between 2007 and 2016. Despite these rates, only one-third of goutpatients were receiving ULT.
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; John D Fitzgerald; Puja P Khanna; Sangmee Bae; Manjit K Singh; Tuhina Neogi; Michael H Pillinger; Joan Merill; Susan Lee; Shraddha Prakash; Marian Kaldas; Maneesh Gogia; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Will Taylor; Frédéric Lioté; Hyon Choi; Jasvinder A Singh; Nicola Dalbeth; Sanford Kaplan; Vandana Niyyar; Danielle Jones; Steven A Yarows; Blake Roessler; Gail Kerr; Charles King; Gerald Levy; Daniel E Furst; N Lawrence Edwards; Brian Mandell; H Ralph Schumacher; Mark Robbins; Neil Wenger; Robert Terkeltaub Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Bridget Teevan Burke; Anna Köttgen; Andrew Law; Beverly Gwen Windham; Dorry Segev; Alan N Baer; Josef Coresh; Mara A McAdams-DeMarco Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Amir Qaseem; Russell P Harris; Mary Ann Forciea; Thomas D Denberg; Michael J Barry; Cynthia Boyd; R. Dobbin Chow; Linda L Humphrey; Devan Kansagara; Sandeep Vijan; Timothy J Wilt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sharan K Rai; Lindsay C Burns; Mary A De Vera; Aliya Haji; Dean Giustini; Hyon K Choi Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: John D Osborne; James S Booth; Tobias O'Leary; Amy Mudano; Giovanna Rosas; Phillip J Foster; Kenneth G Saag; Maria I Danila Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: Di Cheng; Chunyan Hu; Rui Du; Hongyan Qi; Lin Lin; Xueyan Wu; Lina Ma; Kui Peng; Mian Li; Min Xu; Yu Xu; Yufang Bi; Weiqing Wang; Yuhong Chen; Jieli Lu Journal: Front Med Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 4.592
Authors: Andrew Chiou; Bryant R England; Harlan Sayles; Geoffrey M Thiele; Michael J Duryee; Joshua F Baker; Namrata Singh; Grant W Cannon; Gail S Kerr; Andreas Reimold; Angelo Gaffo; Ted R Mikuls Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Jeanne Charleston; Beiwen Wu; Kelly Gleason; Karen White; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb; Daniel E Ford; Timothy B Plante; Allan C Gelber; Lawrence J Appel; Edgar R Miller; Stephen P Juraschek Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 2.486