Patients were seen either at the Department of Ophthalmology at the Charité, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany (n = 17), or the AugenZentrum Siegburg, Germany (n = 8), between May 2000 and December 2005. Clinical examinations were conducted after explanation of the procedures and receipt of informed consent. The research adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, and Investigational Review Board approval was obtained.
Included were consecutive patients with long duration (minimum, 1 year) of regular CQ/HCQ intake, with or without visual disturbances suggestive of retinal dysfunction. Patients with signs of other retinal diseases (e.g., age-related macular degeneration or diabetic retinopathy) were excluded.
All 25 patients underwent a complete eye examination, including best-corrected visual acuity, slit lamp, and ophthalmoscopy. Fluorescein angiography was performed in seven patients. The in vivo measurement of FAF was performed with a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (Heidelberg Retina Angiograph 1 or 2; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany), as described previously.
28 Argon laser light (488 nm) was used to excite RPE autofluorescence. A wide band-pass filter with a cutoff at 500 nm was inserted in front of the detector. A 30° field-of-view mode was used. The image resolution was 512 × 512 (HRA1)/768 × 768 (HRA2) pixels. The maximum illumination of a 10° × 10° field-of-view was approximately 2 mW/cm
2. Six images per second were recorded, and approximately eight single images were averaged depending on the fixation of the patient.
Recording of the mfERG was performed according to the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (ISCEV) guideline.
29 The recording protocols have been described in detail elsewhere.
28 mfERGs were recorded and analyzed with the VERIS system (EDI, San Mateo, CA) or the RetiScan system (Roland Consult, Brandenburg, Germany). Recording was performed unilaterally with maximum dilated pupils using a contact lens electrode (Jet; LKC Technologies, Gaithersburg, MD). Refractive errors were corrected. For stimulation, a black-and-white pattern of 61 hexagons was presented on a monitor (200 cd/m
2 for white, 99.3% contrast). The duration of data acquisition was 4 to 5 minutes, divided into eight sessions. Data analysis (first order kernel) was performed with the software of the respective system. The response elicited by the central hexagon (ring 1) and summated responses elicited by concentric rings of hexagons surrounding the center (rings 2–5) were evaluated. Based on manually controlled cursor placement, amplitudes and implicit times were determined for the first positive component (P1) of each trace. Amplitudes were expressed relative to their respective area (nV/deg
2). The normal ranges for these amplitudes and implicit times were defined by calculation of the median values and the 95% confidence intervals in one eye of 50 age-similar probands with each system. Because of variations in the recording techniques between both recording systems a direct comparison of response parameters is not feasible, because in normal control subjects amplitudes are slightly higher and implicit times are longer with the RetiScan system.
30 Therefore, the percentage of P1 amplitude loss and implicit time delay in comparison to the respective normal values for each system was calculated. mfERG stimuli location and anatomic areas correspond roughly as follows: ring 1 to the fovea, ring 2 to the parafovea, ring 3 to the perifovea, ring 4 to the near periphery, and ring 5 to the central part of the middle periphery. The area of the rings was comparable between both systems. In an unpublished series of 15 patients with different macular disorders, we found no difference in the distribution of retinal abnormalities when recording with both systems.