ArticleClinical rheumatology2018
Sharp decline in hydroxychloroquine dosing-analysis of 17,797 initiators from 2007 to 2016.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progression of hydroxychloroquine-induced retinopathy after drug cessation.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Observational
- Article
- Nationwide patterns of hydroxychloroquine dosing and monitoring of retinal toxicity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Adherence to Weight-Based Dosing Guidelines in Patients Receiving Hydroxychloroquine for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Quality Improvement Initiative.ACR open rheumatology · 2021Article
- The effect of an electronic medical record intervention on hydroxychloroquine prescribing habits and surveyed providers' opinions of the 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines in the rheumatology and dermatology practices of an academic institutionle.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Rheumatologists' perspective on hydroxychloroquine guidelines.Lupus science & medicine · 2020Article
- Hydroxychloroquine retinopathy - implications of research advances for rheumatology care.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2018Review
- Compliance With Hydroxychloroquine Screening Guidelines at a Large Academic Medical Center.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We aimed to assess the impact of ophthalmology weight-based hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) dosing guidelines on prescribing patterns. We examined initial HCQ prescription dosing between 2007 and 2016 and determined independent predictors for HCQ dosing above the previous (2011) recommended ≤ 6.5 mg/kg of ideal body weight (IBW)/day and the latest (2016) recommended ≤ 5.0 mg/kg of actual body weight (ABW)/day using logistic regression. Among 17,797 patients (82% female), the proportion of 400 mg prescribed daily dosing declined sharply from 80% in 2007-2011 to nearly 40% in 2014, whereas the proportions of 200- and 300-mg daily doses showed the opposite trends during the same periods. Accordingly, the risk of HCQ dosing above the guideline recommendations declined by more than 60%. While 36% of normal body mass index (BMI) individuals were classified as dosing above the IBW-based guideline, 66% would have received dosing above the latest ABW-based guideline. The risk of excess dosing was associated with female patients and dermatology prescribers (adjusted odds ratios ≥ 2 according to IBW- or ABW-based guidelines). There has been a sharp decline in HCQ dosing following ophthalmology weight-based guidelines in recent years. While this trend is likely helpful in reducing the risk of retinopathy, its potential impact on HCQ efficacy remains to be clarified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.