<strong>Marmara</strong> <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> 2011; 24 (1):68-72 DOI: 10.5472/MMJ.2010.01575.2Case Report / Olgu SunumuTwo Cases With Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine MaculopathyKlorokin ve Hidroksiklorokin Makülopatili İki OlguFulya AKMAN, Eren ÇERMAN, Özlem YENİCE, Haluk KAZOKOĞLU<strong>Marmara</strong> University School of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, İstanbul, TürkiyeABSTRACTWe described two cases of retinopathy due toantimalarial drugs and evaluated drug screening methodsin antimalarial treatment.We reviewed our clinical records, fundus photographs,visual fields and the fluorescein angiographies of twopatients from our retina referral department.The first case arose due to the misinterpretation of testresults, despite the presence of adequate screeningtests. The second case arose because of the inadequateinformation about the importance of screening tests.Keywords: Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, RetinaltoxicityÖZETİki antimalarial ilaç kullanımına bağlı retinopati olgususunduk ve antimalarial tedavisinde tarama yöntemlerinideğerlendirdik.Retina bölümümüzde takip edilen iki olgunun klinikkayıtları, fundus fotoğrafları, görme alanı, flöresananjiografileri incelendi.İlk olguda testler yapılmış olduğu halde sonuçlarınınyanlış yorumlanması, ikinci olguda ise hastaya taramatestlerinin öneminin yeterince anlatılmamış olmasısebep olarak görüldü.Anahtar Kelimeler: Klorokin, Hidroksiklorokin,Retinal toksisiteINTRODUCTIONThe diagnosis of advanced chloroquineand hydroxychloroquine retinopathy is based on thecombined presence of parafoveal pigment epithelialatrophy as seen on fundus biomicroscopy, andacquired paracentral scotoma on threshold visualfield testing using the 10-2 program with white testlight on a Humphrey perimeter 1 . Although the effectsof long term usage of antimalarials are well known, itis still debatable what type and what frequency ofscreening should be performed to recognize toxicityas early as possible.Here we present two cases of antimalarialretinal toxicity which resulted with severe visualimpairment. Old and new screening methods to ruleout possible ocular toxicity, the dose monitoringguidelines and the follow up strategy aresubsequently discussed.Both cases were screened for color visiondefects with 25 plates of Ischiara test. The visionfield tests were performed with The HumphreyVisual Field Analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec,Dublin, CA) in our department. All previous visionfield tests were also performed with The HumphreyVisual Field Analyzer. For each patient, fundusflourescein angiography and fundus photographywere performed to diagnose maculopathy.Başvuru tarihi / Submitted: 06.02.2010 Kabul tarihi / Accepted: 06.09.2010Correspondence to: Özlem Yenice, M.D. <strong>Marmara</strong> Üniversites Tıp Fakültesi, Göz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı,İstanbul, Türkiye. e-mail: yeniceozlem@yahoo.com68<strong>Marmara</strong> <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> 2011; 24 (1):68-72
F. AKMAN, et alChloroquine and hydroxychloroquine maculopathyCASE REPORTCase 1.A 24-year old woman (52 kg and 155cmtall) with a 6-year history of SLE was seen for retinalconsultation on February 14, 2006 in our clinic. Shehad been taking a daily dose of 500 mg ofchloroquine (9.62 mg/kg/day) for 2 years, 250 mg ofchloroquine (4.81 mg/kg/day) for 1 year, 250 mg ofchloroquine (4.81 mg/kg/day) once in two days for 2years, 250 mg of hydroxychloroquine (3.84mg/kg/day) for 2 months.Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was7/10 bilaterally, color vision was compromised.Fundus examination showed a ring ofdepigmentation surrounded by a ring ofhyperpigmentation (Figure 1) in both eyes. Westopped the administration of the drug with thediagnosis of Bull’s eye maculopathy. Past medicalhistory revealed that the patient had a 40-2 visionfield report done on February 20 th , 2003 and it wasinterpreted to be normal by a rheumatologist,although actually central scotomas (Figure 2) werecompatible with chloroquine maculopathy. Thesecond 40-2 field of vision was done on November20 th , 2005 and showed deterioration (Figure 3) ofthe visual field, but this was again considered asnormal. During the 2 years follow up, neither furtherdeterioration nor improvement of best visual acuitywere disclosed (BCVA 0.7).Figure 1.Case 1. A ring of depigmentation surrounded by a ring of hyperpigmentation on colored fundusphotographs in both eyes.Figure 2. Case 1. Field of vision test from February 20, 2003.Central scotomas are seenbilaterally.69<strong>Marmara</strong> <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> 2011; 24 (1):68-72