Background: Gout is the most prevalent inflammatory arthritis in the Asia-Pacific region and worldwide. This clinical practice guideline (CPG) aims to provide recommendations based on systematically obtained evidence and values and preferences tailored to the unique needs of patients with gout and hyperuricemia in Asia,
|LORENZO Et aL.
| INTRODUC TI ONGout is the most prevalent inflammatory arthritis in the Asia-Pacific region and worldwide. 1 Its prevalence increased steadily in various countries: 2.7% in the 1990s to 3.9% in early 2000 in the United States and from 3.4 per 1000 in 2007 to 7.6 per 1000 persons in 2015 in Korea. 2,3 The prevalence is higher in certain ethnic groups.The risk for tophi formation tends to be higher after controlling for age, gender, hypertension, diuretic use, and kidney function. 4 Varying prevalence across ethnic groups indicates that genetics affects its development and the individual's risk when exposed to environmental or dietary variables. 5,6 Despite scientific advancements, disease control of gout is suboptimal. 2,3 Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) from Western and several Asian countries have provided recommendations for the management of gout. [7][8][9] However, the need to formulate unified Asia-Pacific recommendations was recognized. This CPG aims to provide evidence-based recommendations in managing gout in its different phases: asymptomatic hyperuricemia, acute gout, intercritical gout, and chronic tophaceous or complicated gout. It covers both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions (NPI) with consideration of the unique needs of patients with gout in Asia, Australasia, and the Middle East. The target users of these guidelines are general practitioners and specialists, including rheumatologists, in different clinical settings in these regions.
| G UIDELINE DE VELOPMENT ME THODSThe Steering Committee (SC) formed the guideline development working groups (GDG), formulated the guideline questions (Table 1) in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format, and oversaw the CPG processes (Figure 1). The Technical Working Group (TWG) appraised and summarized the evidence, applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to determine the certainty of evidence, and drafted the recommendations.The Consensus Panel (CP) was composed of 9 key stakeholders (rheumatologists, general practitioners, academicians, and a patient representative) from Australia,