Cross-sectional study reveals retinal toxicity features in systemic lupus erythematosus patients using hydroxychloroquine, suggesting implications for dosage monitoring.
Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is widely used in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), yet cumulative exposure may result in progressive retinal toxicity. Structural biomarkers capable of identifying subclinical damage remain incompletely defined. Methods: In this cross-sectional controlled study, 60 female SLE patients receiving HCQ for ≥5 years (22 with clinically detectable maculopathy and 38 without) and 30 healthy controls underwent a comprehensive ophthalmologic assessment including spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macular thickness parameters were analyzed. Logistic regression and ROC analysis evaluated exposure-related risk. Results: Patients with clinically detectable maculopathy demonstrated significant superior and temporal RNFL thinning compared with patients with clinically undetectable maculopathy and controls (p ≤ 0.021). Inferior quadrant thinning was detectable in patients without ophthalmoscopic changes, suggesting subclinical neuroaxonal involvement. Parafoveal macular thinning was observed exclusively in the clinically detectable maculopathy group (p = 0.041). Cumulative dose >1000 g independently predicted toxicity (OR 3.84; 95% CI 1.72–8.56). The combined structural–exposure model demonstrated strong discrimination (AUC 0.89). Conclusions: HCQ-related retinal structural changes may be detectable on OCT in the absence of clinically apparent retinal findings. Our results support the concept of a dose-associated structural continuum in HCQ-related retinal injury, involving both inner retinal neuroaxonal parameters and parafoveal macular alterations. However, the cross-sectional design does not allow determination of the temporal sequence of inner versus outer retinal changes. Further longitudinal studies with combined inner and outer retinal layer-specific analysis are required before these findings can inform modifications to current screening strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Geamănu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: