↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of the Economic and Humanistic Burden of Gout

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
A Systematic Review of the Economic and Humanistic Burden of Gout
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40273-015-0288-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gemma E. Shields, Stephen M. Beard

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 37%
Psychology 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 19 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,791,049
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#741
of 1,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,998
of 264,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#17
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.