Episode 424: 431. Gout should we treat to a number? Is Co-testing needed?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2665991326000342?via%3Dihub [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2665991326000342?via%3Dihub]
lancet rheumatology
A treat-to-target strategy versus symptom-driven management of gout in the Netherlands (GO TEST Overture): a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial
The question on the table: Is chasing a serum urate level below six milligrams per deciliter worth the effort? Or are we just torturing our patients with more lab draws and dose titrations than they actually need?
What’s the Real Takeaway?
So — is it worth chasing six? Probably yes, but let's keep expectations realistic.
Think of it like aiming for LDL targets in dyslipidemia — specific numbers keep us intentional,
The bottom line: when your gout patient agrees to start urate-lowering therapy, don’t expect miracles overnight. Lower urate just tilts the odds for fewer flares — it doesn’t guarantee smooth sailing for every patient.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2846208 [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2846208]
HPV, Cytology, and Cotest Cervical Cancer Screening and the Risk of Precancer
Let’s start with the basics. For years the Pap test, or cytology, has been the main tool for catching early changes on the cervix. More recently, we’ve added tests that look directly for HPV, the virus that actually causes most cervical cancers. Some places now do both at the same time, called “cotesting.” It sounds like more must be better, right?
A big study out of British Columbia followed over eight thousand women for up to ten years after they had both tests done at the same visit. The researchers wanted to know: if your HPV test is negative, does adding that extra Pap result actually help keep you safer in the long run?
Here’s what they found. If a woman’s HPV test was positive and her Pap looked abnormal, her chance of developing a significant precancer over time was pretty high, more than 40%. If the HPV test was positive but the Pap looked normal, the risk was lower, but still real—over 20%. Those are the folks we definitely want to follow closely.
But once the HPV test was negative, the story changed. Whether the Pap looked normal or a bit off, the risk of serious precancer over the following years stayed very low—well under 5%, and for most women under 1%. In fact, women who were HPV‑negative had almost the same low risk as women whose HPV and Pap were both negative, but adding that Pap test made screening more complicated and more expensive for very little extra benefit.
So what does this mean in plain language? If your HPV test is negative, you’re in a very low‑risk group for cervical precancer for many years, even if your Pap result isn’t perfectly pristine. Doing both tests on everyone, every time, doesn’t buy much extra safety, but it does add cost and can lead to more follow‑up procedures that many women don’t actually need.
