Two years' experience of screening for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) recently produced new guidelines for the screening of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) retinopathy. New imaging techniques have suggested an increased prevalence of retinopathy (7.5%) compared with previous studies (0.5%). METHODS: We collected prospective data from all patients referred to Sunderland Eye Infirmary, Sunderland for HCQ screening. Patients were screened according to RCOphth guidelines. In addition to retinal images, the data recorded included visual acuity, visual fields and multifocal electroretinography as appropriate, the patient's age, diagnosis, weight, renal function and use of tamoxifen. RESULTS: Of the 678 patients screened, 333 were categorised to be at risk (251 patients had been on HCQ >5 years, 117 had an estimated glomerular function rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 46 were on a dose >5 mg/kg/day). Eighty patients had multiple risk factors, 31 had been on doses of >5 mg/kg/day for >5 years. One hundred and sixty-eight of these patients have now been screened twice. The prevalence of HCQ retinopathy was 2/678 (0.3%) of all screened, 2/333 (0.6%) of patients at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a far lower rate of retinopathy compared to the widely reported figure taken as standard by the RCOphth. This may be multifactorial: this prospective analysis has fewer patients taking higher doses of HCQ and shorter follow up, the comparison of serial images may highlight more cases and in addition, there are significant numbers of patients yet to be referred. Finally, the RCOphth's diagnostic criteria is more exacting than that of the recent literature.

A randomized, double-blind, controlled study of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection into the joint of patients with inflammatory arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Most corticosteroid injections into the joint are guided by the clinical examination (CE), but up to 70% are inaccurately placed, which may contribute to an inadequate response. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ultrasound (US) guidance improves the accuracy and clinical outcome of joint injections as compared with CE guidance in patients with inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: A total of 184 patients with inflammatory arthritis and an inflamed joint (shoulder, elbow, wrist, knee, or ankle) were randomized to receive either US-guided or CE-guided corticosteroid injections. Visual analog scales (VAS) for assessment of function, pain, and stiffness of the target joint, a modified Health Assessment Questionnaire, and the EuroQol 5-domain questionnaire were obtained at baseline and at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postinjection. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level were measured at baseline and 2 weeks. Contrast injected with the steroid was used to assess the accuracy of the joint injection. RESULTS: One-third of CE-guided injections were inaccurate. US-guided injections performed by a trainee rheumatologist were more accurate than the CE-guided injections performed by more senior rheumatologists (83% versus 66%; P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in clinical outcome between the group receiving US-guided injections and the group receiving CE-guided injections. Accurate injections led to greater improvement in joint function, as determined by VAS scores, at 6 weeks, as compared with inaccurate injections (30.6 mm versus 21.2 mm; P = 0.030). Clinicians who used US guidance reliably assessed the accuracy of joint injection (P < 0.001), whereas those who used CE guidance did not (P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: US guidance significantly improves the accuracy of joint injection, allowing a trainee to rapidly achieve higher accuracy than more experienced rheumatologists. US guidance did not improve the short-term outcome of joint injection.

Common ground: the overlap between Endocrinology and Rheumatology.

A number of medical specialities have witnessed a dramatic change in the provision of in patient care over the last decade. Work has moved into outpatient and Day Unit settings and, more recently, into the community. This has led to the amalgamation of speciality based beds with the perceived threat of loss of independence and potential reduction in training opportunities. In reality, our experience of a combined inpatient ward for Rheumatology and Endocrinology patients has been positive, with increased awareness of the coexistence of certain disorders and a resulting enhanced approach to the delivery of patient care, junior doctor education and clinical research. We would like to share our experience by describing some of the overlapping clinical conditions between these specialities that physicians might wish to consider.