4.5 Article

Hydroxychloroquine Blood Levels Predict Hydroxychloroquine Retinopathy

Journal

ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 3, Pages 448-453

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/art.41121

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH (National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases) [R01-AR-069572]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective In 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) changed the recommended daily dose of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) from 6.5 mg/kg to <5 mg/kg. However, it is not clear that the lower prescribed dose of HCQ will have the same efficacy for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) activity or the same role in protecting against cardiovascular risk factors and thrombosis. This study was undertaken to address the frequency of HCQ retinopathy and the role of HCQ blood levels in identifying those individuals who are at a greater future risk of retinopathy. Methods HCQ blood levels in 537 patients with SLE from a large clinical cohort were repeatedly measured, and patients were tested for HCQ retinopathy. We assessed the risk of retinopathy according to clinical characteristics and blood levels of HCQ. Results The overall frequency of retinopathy was 4.3% (23 of 537 patients). There was a 1% risk of retinopathy in the first 5 years of HCQ treatment, 1.8% from 6 to 10 years, 3.3% from 11 to 15 years, 11.5% from 16 to 20 years, and 8.0% after 21 years of use. We found that older age (P < 0.0001), higher body mass index (P for trend = 0.0160), and longer duration of HCQ intake (P = 0.0024 and P for trend = 0.0006) were associated with a higher risk of HCQ toxicity. Higher blood levels of HCQ predicted later HCQ retinopathy (P = 0.0124 and P = 0.0340 for mean and maximum HCQ blood levels, respectively). Conclusion Our data prove the utility of assessing blood levels of HCQ in the prediction of retinopathy. This would allow clinicians to either decrease the dose or increase monitoring in those patients with high HCQ blood levels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available