Objective: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of gout. Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 19 rheumatologists and one evidence based medicine expert representing 13 European countries. Key propositions on management were generated using a Delphi consensus approach. Research evidence was searched systematically for each proposition. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk, odds ratio, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. The quality of evidence was categorised according to the level of evidence. The strength of recommendation (SOR) was assessed using the EULAR visual analogue and ordinal scales. Results: 12 key propositions were generated after three Delphi rounds. Propositions included both non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments and addressed symptomatic control of acute gout, urate lowering therapy (ULT), and prophylaxis of acute attacks. The importance of patient education, modification of adverse lifestyle (weight loss if obese; reduced alcohol consumption; low animal purine diet) and treatment of associated comorbidity and risk factors were emphasised. Recommended drugs for acute attacks were oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), oral colchicine (ES = 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.50)), or joint aspiration and injection of corticosteroid. ULT is indicated in patients with recurrent acute attacks, arthropathy, tophi, or radiographic changes of gout. Allopurinol was confirmed as effective long term ULT (ES = 1.39 (0.78 to 2.01)). If allopurinol toxicity occurs, options include other xanthine oxidase inhibitors, allopurinol desensitisation, or a uricosuric. The uricosuric benzbromarone is more effective than allopurinol (ES = 1.50 (0.76 to 2.24)) and can be used in patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency but may be hepatotoxic. When gout is associated with the use of diuretics, the diuretic should be stopped if possible. For prophylaxis against acute attacks, either colchicine 0.5–1 mg daily or an NSAID (with gastroprotection if indicated) are recommended. Conclusions: 12 key recommendations for management of gout were developed, using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence was evaluated and the SOR provided for each proposition.

Objective: To develop evidence based recommendations for the diagnosis of gout. Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 19 rheumatologists and one evidence based medicine expert, representing 13 European countries. Ten key propositions regarding diagnosis were generated using a Delphi consensus approach. Research evidence was searched systematically for each proposition. Wherever possible the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for diagnostic tests. Relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors and co-morbidities associated with gout. The quality of evidence was categorised according to the evidence hierarchy. The strength of recommendation (SOR) was assessed using the EULAR visual analogue and ordinal scales. Results: 10 key propositions were generated though three Delphi rounds including diagnostic topics in clinical manifestations, urate crystal identification, biochemical tests, radiographs, and risk factors/co-morbidities. Urate crystal identification varies according to symptoms and observer skill but is very likely to be positive in symptomatic gout (LR = 567 (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.5 to 9053)). Classic podagra and presence of tophi have the highest clinical diagnostic value for gout (LR = 30.64 (95% CI, 20.51 to 45.77), and LR = 39.95 (21.06 to 75.79), respectively). Hyperuricaemia is a major risk factor for gout and may be a useful diagnostic marker when defined by the normal range of the local population (LR = 9.74 (7.45 to 12.72)), although some gouty patients may have normal serum uric acid concentrations at the time of investigation. Radiographs have little role in diagnosis, though in late or severe gout radiographic changes of asymmetrical swelling (LR = 4.13 (2.97 to 5.74)) and subcortical cysts without erosion (LR = 6.39 (3.00 to 13.57)) may be useful to differentiate chronic gout from other joint conditions. In addition, risk factors (sex, diuretics, purine-rich foods, alcohol, lead) and co-morbidities (cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and chronic renal failure) are associated with gout. SOR for each proposition varied according to both the research evidence and expert opinion. Conclusions: 10 key recommendations for diagnosis of gout were developed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence for diagnostic tests, risk factors, and co-morbidities was evaluated and the strength of recommendation was provided.

Objective To examine the bone mineral density (BMD), frequency of osteoporosis, and risk factors for BMD reduction in a representative population of female rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients ages 20–70 years. Methods BMD in the femoral neck, total hip, and spine L2–4 (anterior‐posterior view) was measured in 394 RA patients recruited from a validated county RA register (completeness 85%) comprising 721 women ages 20–70 years. BMD was measured with dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry, and age‐specific values were compared with pooled values from a European/US population of healthy subjects free from earlier fractures, chronic diseases, and medications influencing bone metabolism. A multiple linear regression model was used to determine individual predictors of BMD. Results No statistically significant differences were found in demographic, disease activity, disease severity, or health status parameters between the RA register patients in whom BMD was measured and the remaining register patients. Femoral neck BMD was significantly reduced by 4.2% in the age group 50–59 years, and by 5.0% in those ages 60–70 years. For BMD in the total hip, the significant reductions were 3.7%, 6.0%, and 8.5% in the age groups 40–49 years, 50–59 years, and 60–70 years, respectively. No significant reduction in spine L2–4 BMD was found. A 2‐fold increased frequency of osteoporosis was observed in all 4 age groups of RA patients compared with the reference population, ranging from 0% to 28.6% in the femoral neck, 0% to 29.9% in the total hip, and 1.8% to 31.5% in the spine. Predictors of reduced BMD were as follows: at the femoral neck, older age, low body weight, current use of corticosteroids, greater physical disability (as measured by the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire [M‐HAQ]), and presence of rheumatoid factor; at the total hip, older age, low weight, current use of corticosteroids, and higher M‐HAQ disability score; and at the lumbar spine, older age, low weight, and current use of corticosteroids. Conclusion Register‐based prevalence data on BMD reduction in female RA patients ages 20–70 years are presented for the first time in this report, which demonstrates a 2‐fold increase in osteoporosis in this representative population.

Objectives To agree terminology and to develop recommendations for the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD). Methods The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) CPPD Task Force, comprising 15 experts from 10 countries, agreed the terms and recommendations for diagnosis of CPPD using a Delphi consensus approach. Evidence was systematically reviewed and presented in terms of sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio (LR) to support diagnosis; ORs were used for association. Strength of recommendation (SOR) was assessed by the EULAR visual analogue scale. Results It was agreed that ‘CPPD’ should be the umbrella term that includes acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis, osteoarthritis (OA) with CPPD and chronic CPP crystal inflammatory arthritis. Chondrocalcinosis (CC) defines cartilage calcification, most commonly due to CPPD and detected by imaging or histological examination. A total of 11 key recommendations were generated on the topics of clinical features, synovial fluid (SF) examination, imaging, comorbidities and risk factors. Definitive diagnosis of CPPD relies on identification of SF CPP crystals. Rapid onset inflammatory symptoms and signs are suggestive but not definitive for acute CPP crystal arthritis. Radiographic CC is not highly sensitive or specific, whereas ultrasonography appears more useful (LR=24.2, 95% CI 3.51 to 168.01) for peripheral joints. Recognised risk factors for CPPD include ageing, OA and metabolic conditions such as primary hyperparathyroidism, haemochromatosis and hypomagnesaemia; familial forms are rare. SORs varied from 53 to 99 (maximum 100). Conclusion New terms for CPPD were agreed and 11 key recommendations for diagnosis of CPPD were developed using research evidence and expert consensus.

Objectives We investigated access to biologic and synthetic disease modifying drugs (bDMARDs and sDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across Europe. Methods A cross-sectional study at national level was performed in 49 European countries. A questionnaire was sent to one expert, addressing the number of approved and reimbursed bDMARDs and sDMARDs, prices and co-payments, as well as acceptability of bDMARDs (barriers). Data on socio-economic welfare (gross domestic product per capita (GDP), health expenditure, income) were retrieved from web-based sources. Data on health status of RA patients were retrieved from an observational study. Dimensions of access (availability, affordability and acceptability) were correlated with the country's welfare and RA health status. Results In total, 46 countries (94%) participated. Six countries did not reimburse any of the five sDMARDs surveyed, and in ten countries no bDMARDs were reimbursed. While the price of annual treatment with an average sDMARD was never higher than GPD, the price of one year treatment with a bDMARD exceeded GPD in 26 countries. Perceived barriers for access to bDMARDs were mainly found among financial and administrative restrictions. All dimensions of access were positively correlated with the country's economic welfare (coefficients 0.69 to 0.86 for overall access scores). Conclusions Patients with RA in lower income European countries have less access to bDMARDs and sDMARDs, with particularly striking unaffordability of bDMARDs in some of these countries. When accepting that sDMARDs and bDMARDs are equally needed across countries to treat RA, our data point to inequities in access to pharmacological treatment for RA in Europe.