March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Red Vs. White 10-2 Fields In Screening For Hydroxychloroquine Toxicity
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Michael F. Marmor
    Byers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
  • Fred Y. Chien
    Medical Retina Specialist, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Santa Ana, California
  • Mark W. Johnson
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Michael F. Marmor, None; Fred Y. Chien, None; Mark W. Johnson, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 5230. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Michael F. Marmor, Fred Y. Chien, Mark W. Johnson; Red Vs. White 10-2 Fields In Screening For Hydroxychloroquine Toxicity. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):5230.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : White 10-2 automated fields are a standard test in screening for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) retinopathy. Older literature had suggested that red targets may be more sensitive than white targets, although there is a paucity of data. We compare these two modalities in selected cases of HCQ usage, both with and without toxicity.

Methods: : Our patients were using HCQ for lupus and related diseases. Humphrey 10-2 automated fields were performed using standard protocols and either white III or red III target sizes. Patients were also tested with objective modalities such as SD-OCT and mfERG to verify or rule out toxicity.

Results: : Some patients with only minimal or borderline parafoveal sensitivity losses on white testing showed strikingly complete bull’s eye patterns of loss with red fields. On the other hand, other patients with toxicity showed similar patterns of loss in their white pattern deviation plots and red fields. Some patients without toxicity, or normal subjects, showed non-specific losses or depression on red testing that were not present with white and were sometimes located in parafoveal regions.

Conclusions: : Our cases support the historical suggestion that red visual field testing is more sensitive but less specific than white. Some cases of HCQ toxicity with only subtle white field losses can be recognized or confirmed more definitively with red fields. However, for others there is little difference, and red testing produces more false areas of loss in non-toxic patients. We conclude that either red or white fields are acceptable screening tools as long as examiners understand test variability, and have a low threshold for early signs of abnormality. The addition of objective tests for screening, and certainly for confirmation of toxicity, is recommended.

Keywords: drug toxicity/drug effects • macula/fovea • visual fields 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.