ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 2179

Poor Rates of Screening for Retinal Toxicity in Patients on Antimalarial Medications: A Population-Based Study

Ksenia Gukova1, John M. Esdaile2, Hamid Tavakoli3 and J. Antonio Avina-Zubieta1,2, 1Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, BC, Canada, 3Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Meeting: 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Eye disease, Hydroxychloroquine, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Title: Health Services Research Poster III – ACR/ARHP

Session Type: ACR/ARHP Combined Abstract Session

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose:

Antimalarial drugs (AM) are commonly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). AM can be associated with retinal toxicity that may result in vision loss. Current US guidelines recommend annual eye screening for all patients with ≥ 5 years of AM exposure. Our objectives were 1) to identify the pattern of retinal screening in patients with RA and SLE under AM therapy, and 2) to evaluate the association of being seen by a rheumatologist and ophthalmologist retinal screening.

Methods:

We conducted a population-based study using an administrative health database including the entire population in the province of British Columbia, Canada (over 5 million individuals). Our data included all outpatient and inpatient visits, investigations, procedure codes, demographics, vital statistics and all dispensed medications. We identified RA and SLE cases using a validated algorithm. We created 2 cohorts of AM users: 1) patients who started AM for ≥ 6 consecutive months after disease onset, and 2) a subset of cohort 1, restricted to patients with continuous AM use for ≥ 5 years, allowing gaps of < 6 months.

The unit of measurement was patient-year (PY) of AM use. The primary outcome was the number of PYs in which individuals had an ophthalmology visit with retinal screening (using billing codes for procedures), defined as either 1) fluorescein angiography of retina, 2) fundus photography, 3) visual field examination, 4) quantitative perimetry examination, 5) anterior segment gonioscopy, or 6) spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

For objective 2, we created 18-month windows of AM exposure to assess the odds of a retinal screening visit from a previous rheumatologist visit versus not seen by a rheumatologist. We used a generalized linear model with general estimation equation to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of the events.

Results:

In cohort 1, we identified 23,868 patients (RA=20,000, SLE=3,868) . Among these, 8,119 (34.0%) patients had a history of ≥ 5 years continuous use of AM (cohort 2). The average age in RA patients was 56.2 (SD=15.7) and the average age in SLE patients was 47.3 (SD=14.9). Seventy-three percent of RA patients and 80.0% of SLE patients were female.

For cohort 1, we identified a total of 219,355 PYs. Despite guidelines suggesting eye screening every PY of AM use, only 29.7% (65,106) of PYs were associated with retinal screening. For cohort 2, a total of 44,676 PYs of AM exposure were identified with 43.4% (19,393) PYs associated with retinal screening.

For both cohort 1 and 2, there was a significant association between being seen by a rheumatologist and retinal screening (cohort 1: OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.57-1.69, P<0.0001; cohort 2: OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.37-1.56, P<0.0001).

Conclusion:

Overall, this large population-based study demonstrates that only a small proportion of patients under AM therapy undergo for retinal screening as per current guidelines. Our study shows that visits by rheumatologists improve adherence to screening guidelines, however, a huge gap still remains even in a publically funded healthcare system.


Disclosure: K. Gukova, None; J. M. Esdaile, None; H. Tavakoli, None; J. A. Avina-Zubieta, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Gukova K, Esdaile JM, Tavakoli H, Avina-Zubieta JA. Poor Rates of Screening for Retinal Toxicity in Patients on Antimalarial Medications: A Population-Based Study [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018; 70 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/poor-rates-of-screening-for-retinal-toxicity-in-patients-on-antimalarial-medications-a-population-based-study/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/poor-rates-of-screening-for-retinal-toxicity-in-patients-on-antimalarial-medications-a-population-based-study/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology