A nationwide survey of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy presenting to the hospital eye service in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The risk of developing hydroxychloroquine retinopathy is considered sufficient to justify national monitoring programmes. There are an estimated 71,144-77,170 long-term hydroxychloroquine users in the UK. However, the number of patients diagnosed with retinopathy is unknown. This study aimed to identify the number of cases and clinical characteristics of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy diagnosed annually in hospital eye services across the UK. METHODS: A nationwide, prospective case ascertainment study was undertaken using the British Ophthalmological Surveillance Unit, which sends approximately 1420 reporting cards to UK Ophthalmologists monthly. The case definition was two abnormal tests suggestive of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Demographic and clinical data relating to hydroxychloroquine use and retinopathy were collected from identified cases using a standardised questionnaire over a 1-year period (2018-2019). RESULTS: Sixty-six cases of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy were reported, and 46 questionnaires were received (73% response rate). Twenty-four incident cases of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy were identified (24-43 cases following adjustment). The median duration of drug therapy was 19 years (range: 4-50 years, IQR: 14.5-23 years). Fourteen patients were asymptomatic, and 9 symptomatic at diagnosis. A trend towards a lower mean deviation on visual field testing was observed in the symptomatic group (-11.55 dB versus -6.9 dB; P = 0.15). CONCLUSION: Between 1 in 1655 and 3215 (0.03-0.06%) long-term hydroxychloroquine users were diagnosed with retinopathy over the study period. We estimate that monitoring was available for 1.9-3.8% of long-term users, accounting for a lower than expected incidence. The high proportion of symptomatic retinopathy at diagnosis underlines the importance of monitoring to detect pre-symptomatic disease.

A Randomized Crossover Study to Assess the Usability of Two New Vision Tests in Patients with Low Vision.

SIGNIFICANCE: Well-established charts such as Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study are able to quantify visual acuity (VA) with a low cutoff of 1.6 logMAR. Below this point, nonquantitative measures, such as count fingers, hand movements, and light perception, are used. There is a need for more reproducible, comparable, and reliable ways to measure VA changes in this patient cohort. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the ability of the Berkeley Rudimentary Vision Test (BRVT) and the Freiburg Acuity Test (FrACT) to quantify VA in low-vision patients who score nonnumerical VAs in standard charts. METHODS: Fifty adult participants with VA ≤1.0 logMAR in both eyes were recruited from the Oxford Eye Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom. Correlation between FrACT and BRVT results and the correlation between VA and daily living activities were analyzed statistically. Potential predictors of differences were investigated. RESULTS: The BRVT was significantly faster to conduct (P = .002), but FrACT was able to quantify vision numerically in a greater proportion of eyes. The κ agreement between tests was 0.26. The difference increased systematically with the VA reduction (P < .0001). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a skew to measurement of lower logMAR VA indicating better vision measured on the FrACT. The only significant predictor of difference between the tests was binocular VA (coefficient, -0.445; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Both tests are suitable for a very low-vision population. The BRVT is a faster test to administer, but FrACT provides a numerical result in more eyes. The poor intertest repeatability indicates that they cannot be used interchangeably. The BRVT generally reported poorer vision than did the FrACT. The medium of presentation, such as a computer screen or externally lit print medium, is likely to be the biggest factor in these differences and warrants further investigation.

Effects of pupil dilation on MAIA microperimetry.

BACKGROUND: Macular Integrity Assessment microperimetry assesses macular sensitivity to projected point light sources and maps eye movements to assess fixation stability. Although microperimetry is gaining prominence as an assessment tool in clinical and research settings, there is no consensus on whether it should be performed before or after pupil dilation. No studies to date have examined the effect of pupil dilation on results. The aim of this project was to elucidate the effect of pupil dilation on microperimetry outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective audit. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty healthy patients from postoperative cataract clinic and 10 patients with choroideremia to simulate a disease with peripheral visual field loss. METHODS: Subjects underwent 10-2 68-point field testing using the Macular Integrity Assessment microperimeter on each eye. Subjects then underwent randomized dilation of one eye, and the test was repeated in both eyes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared changes in threshold sensitivity and fixation stability pre-pupil and post-pupil dilation. The undilated eye was analysed for any learning or fatigue effect caused by test repetition. RESULTS: Dilation produced no significant effect on threshold sensitivity (dilation effect: -0.29 decibels, P = 0.23) or fixation stability in healthy controls or in choroideremia patients (dilation effect: +0.08log bivariate contour ellipse area, P = 0.14). There was also no significant learning effect seen in the undilated eye, with no improvement in threshold sensitivity (order of eye testing: +0.03log bivariate contour ellipse area, P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical setting, patients may be tested for 10 degree microperimetry with or without pupil dilation, as both scenarios yield consistent and interchangeable results.