PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of ring ratios in detecting hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) related retinal toxicity using the 103-hexagon multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: 23 patients taking HCQ were consecutively evaluated for retinal toxicity and divided into those without (HCQ-non-toxic group) and with documented visual field loss (HCQ-toxic group). A control patient group without retinal disease and not on HCQ was used for comparison. 103-hexagon P(1) mfERG amplitude response densities were analysed by averaging the 103 responses into six (age-corrected) concentric rings (R(1)-R(6)), calculating standard ring ratios (R(1):R(2)-R(1):R(6)) and R(5) ring ratios (R(5):R(1)-R(5):R(6)). Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare these tests for detecting toxicity. RESULTS: Relative to HCQ-non-toxic and control groups, the HCQ-toxic group showed generalised reduction of the 103-hexagon mfERG absolute responses most prominent in the foveal/pericentral regions. R(5) ring ratios were superior to standard ring ratios in discriminating the HCQ-toxic from the HCQ-non-toxic and control groups and were approximately equivalent to pericentral absolute ring responses in detecting HCQ retinal toxicity by receiver operating characteristic criteria, with R(5):R(4) and R(5):R(3) ratios performing best. However, R(5) ring ratios revealed improved sensitivity over absolute ring responses (89% vs 73%) at a 95% specificity threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ring ratio analysis using the R(5) ring response as the 'internal reference ring' appeared equivalent to pericentral absolute ring responses in detecting HCQ retinal toxicity, and possibly superior at clinically desirable specificity thresholds. R(5) ring ratios did not require age correction, a potential clinical advantage over absolute ring responses.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of ring ratios in detecting hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) related retinal toxicity using the 103-hexagon multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: 23 patients taking HCQ were consecutively evaluated for retinal toxicity and divided into those without (HCQ-non-toxic group) and with documented visual field loss (HCQ-toxic group). A control patient group without retinal disease and not on HCQ was used for comparison. 103-hexagon P(1) mfERG amplitude response densities were analysed by averaging the 103 responses into six (age-corrected) concentric rings (R(1)-R(6)), calculating standard ring ratios (R(1):R(2)-R(1):R(6)) and R(5) ring ratios (R(5):R(1)-R(5):R(6)). Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to compare these tests for detecting toxicity. RESULTS: Relative to HCQ-non-toxic and control groups, the HCQ-toxic group showed generalised reduction of the 103-hexagon mfERG absolute responses most prominent in the foveal/pericentral regions. R(5) ring ratios were superior to standard ring ratios in discriminating the HCQ-toxic from the HCQ-non-toxic and control groups and were approximately equivalent to pericentral absolute ring responses in detecting HCQretinal toxicity by receiver operating characteristic criteria, with R(5):R(4) and R(5):R(3) ratios performing best. However, R(5) ring ratios revealed improved sensitivity over absolute ring responses (89% vs 73%) at a 95% specificity threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ring ratio analysis using the R(5) ring response as the 'internal reference ring' appeared equivalent to pericentral absolute ring responses in detecting HCQretinal toxicity, and possibly superior at clinically desirable specificity thresholds. R(5) ring ratios did not require age correction, a potential clinical advantage over absolute ring responses.
Authors: Richard Bergholz; Klaus Rüther; Jan Schroeter; Christoph von Sonnleithner; Daniel J Salchow Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Vivienne C Greenstein; Luz Amaro-Quireza; Evelyn S Abraham; Rithambara Ramachandran; Stephen H Tsang; Donald C Hood Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Husam Alghanem; Tapas R Padhi; Adrienne Chen; Leslie M Niziol; Maria Fernanda Abalem; Natalie Dakki; Timothy Steffens; Chris Andrews; David C Musch; K Thiran Jayasundera; Naheed W Khan Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Vivienne C Greenstein; Jose Ronaldo Lima de Carvalho; Rait Parmann; Luz Amaro-Quireza; Winston Lee; Donald C Hood; Stephen H Tsang; Janet R Sparrow Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 4.799