SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

Objective

In recent years hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has emerged as a key therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We determined the rates of HCQ use in a diverse, community-based cohort of patients with SLE and identified predictors of current HCQ use.

Methods

Patients were participants in the University of California San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study, an ongoing longitudinal study of patients with confirmed SLE. We examined the prevalence of HCQ use per person-year and compared baseline characteristics of users and nonusers, including demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and health system use variables. Multiple logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to evaluate predictors of HCQ use.

Results

A total of 881 patients contributed 3,095 person-years of data over 4 interview cycles. The prevalence of HCQ use was 55 per 100 person-years and was constant throughout the observation period. In multivariate models, the odds of HCQ use were nearly doubled among patients receiving their SLE care from a rheumatologist compared with those identifying generalists or nephrologists as their primary sources of SLE care. In addition, patients with shorter disease duration were more likely to use HCQ, even after adjusting for age and other covariates.

Conclusion

In this community-based cohort of patients, HCQ use was suboptimal. Physician specialty and disease duration were the strongest predictors of HCQ use. Patients who are not using HCQ, those with longer disease duration, and those who see nonrheumatologists for their SLE care should be targeted for quality improvement.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has emerged as a key therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (1). HCQ has been shown to reduce SLE activity in 2 double-blind randomized clinical trials (2, 3). Other, less robust, observational data suggest that HCQ may reduce the progression of lupus renal disease (4), improve lipid profiles (5), reduce the incidence of thrombotic events and diabetes mellitus (6, 7), and improve survival, even when accounting for its frequent use in patients with more mild disease (8–11). Furthermore, HCQ is inexpensive, safe, and well-tolerated: only 5–10% of patients experience minor side effects, and these are usually gastrointestinal or cutaneous (rash). In rare cases, serious eye toxicity has been reported (in <0.1% of HCQ users after 10 years of use) (12). There is increasing consensus that HCQ should be used by the vast majority of patients with SLE (13).

HCQ use has been studied almost exclusively among patients followed by rheumatologists at tertiary care centers; the rates of use ranged from 48% to 68% (8–10, 14, 15). One community-based study from Puerto Rico found that 31% of SLE patients were using HCQ, but this study excluded patients who were enrolled in public insurance programs (16). To our knowledge, no other published studies have identified predictors of HCQ use or nonuse in a community-based cohort of SLE patients. In this study, we aimed to determine the prevalence of HCQ use in a diverse, community-based cohort of patients with SLE in the US and to identify predictors of HCQ use.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

Patients.

Patients were participants in the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Lupus Outcomes Study (LOS). The LOS is an ongoing longitudinal survey of 1,180 patients with physician-diagnosed SLE recruited between 2002 and 2009. Subjects eligible for this study were enrolled between 2002 and 2004 and followed through 2006. The LOS introduced the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) in the second interview year (2003–2004). Therefore, we drew data for this study from the second through fifth consecutive years of the LOS (waves 2–5). A total of 887 individuals were interviewed at least once during this period. On average, 94% of eligible subjects from each wave were re-interviewed in the subsequent wave. Forty-six observations were excluded because they were missing key variables.

Patients were originally recruited from academic rheumatology offices (23%), community rheumatology offices (11%), and other community-based sources (66%), such as SLE support groups, the Internet, and media advertisements. Two-thirds of the participants were residents of California and the remainder resided in 40 other US states. All LOS participants were required to meet the American College of Rheumatology criteria for SLE (17) after formal chart review by a rheumatologist or a trained nurse or research assistant supervised by a rheumatologist prior to entry into the cohort. All participants provided informed consent prior to the interviews. The UCSF Committee on Human Research approved the study protocol.

Data.

Data were collected via an annual, structured, 1-hour telephone survey conducted by trained interviewers. The survey included validated items covering the following domains: demographics and socioeconomic status, status of SLE, disability, general health and social functioning, employment, psychological and cognitive status, health care utilization, medications, and health insurance coverage.

Measures.

Demographic/socioeconomic variables.

Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics included age (in years) at interview, sex, self-reported race/ethnicity (white, Hispanic, Asian, African American, or other/multiple), education level (less than high school, high school graduate, some college/no degree, associate degree/trade or vocational school, college graduate, advanced or professional degree), and income (annual household income at or below versus above 125% of the federal poverty threshold for the year prior to the interview).

Disease-specific variables.

SLE-specific variables included duration of disease (in years), self-reported SLE flare within the 3 months prior to the interview, and disease activity over the 3 months prior to the interview as measured by the SLAQ, a validated self-report measure of SLE activity (18, 19). Patients were also queried regarding any episodes of organ involvement since the time of the last interview, including specific questions about incident proteinuria or other kidney problems, hemoptysis or other lung problems, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and stroke or myocardial infarction.

Health care utilization.

The health care utilization section of the questionnaire asked participants about their medical care over the preceding 12 months, including an enumeration of all health care practitioner visits by specialty. Participants were asked directly about who serves as their “main SLE doctor.” Internal medicine and family physicians were considered generalists. We created a measure of pill burden by summing the number of reported daily medications for each patient (range 0–15). In the logistic regression model, HCQ use was subtracted from this total.

Health insurance.

The insurance section of the questionnaire, derived from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, included items regarding the type of health plan (health maintenance organization versus fee-for-service) and source of coverage, if any (employment-based, individually purchased plan, Medicare, or Medicaid) (20).

HCQ and other medication use.

Subjects were asked about “ever” use of multiple drugs upon entry into the study (wave 1). In subsequent interviews, they were asked about use of these drugs (waves 2–5) since the last interview, including corticosteroids (oral and intravenous), mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and biologic agents. Biologic agents were defined as any of the following: etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, or anakinra. Subjects were also asked if they used antihypertensives or anticoagulants (heparin or warfarin). The main outcome of interest was prevalent HCQ use since the time of the last interview. Respondents were defined as users if they answered “yes” to the question, “Since the time of your last interview, have you taken Plaquenil (sanofi-aventis, Bridgewater, NJ) hydroxychloroquine, or chloroquine?”

Statistical analysis.

Patients were followed for between 1 and 4 interview cycles and could therefore contribute up to 4 observations to the analysis. All analyses were performed by comparing the HCQ user person-years to the HCQ nonuser person-years. In order to account for the multiple observations contributed by individuals in this analysis, demographic, clinical, and health system utilization characteristics of the cohort were compared using the Taylor series method for variance estimation in all bivariate statistical tests, as implemented in the survey analysis procedures in SAS, version 9.2 (SAS, Cary, NC).

We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between HCQ use and various characteristics, several of which do not vary over time and were measured at study entry (e.g., date of birth, date of diagnosis, race/ethnicity) and several of which can vary year-to-year and were measured annually (e.g., education status, poverty status, physician type, and insurance status). Covariates in the model included age (by decade), ethnicity (white versus nonwhite), income (below poverty versus not below poverty), education level, insurance type, disease duration, disease activity score as measured by the SLAQ, total pill burden (excluding plaquenil), and main SLE physician (rheumatologist, nephrologist, generalist, or other). To account for multiple observations contributed by a single individual, we used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to determine predictors of HCQ use. SAS software version 9.2 (SAS) was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

A total of 881 individuals contributed 3,095 person-years of data over 4 interview cycles in this analysis. Figure 1 describes the flow of patients through the 4 waves of interviews with regard to HCQ use. Wave 2 began with 804 patients, of whom 452 (56%) took HCQ. Between waves 2 and 3, 59 subjects left the cohort and 68 additional subjects entered. Wave 3 contained 813 individuals, 448 (55%) of whom took HCQ. Forty-six subjects left the cohort between waves 3 and 4, leaving 767 patients in wave 4. In wave 4, 410 (53%) of the individuals took HCQ. Forty-six subjects left the cohort between waves 4 and 5; 711 patients participated in wave 5. Overall, 55% of patients reported use of HCQ each year. Each year, approximately 7% of patients transitioned from one category of HCQ use to the other.

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use between 2004 and 2007 in 4 waves of interviews in the University of California San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study. Diagonal lines represent patients who transitioned from one category to the other from one wave to the next. Horizontal lines represent patients who remained in the same category from one wave to the next. Patients who exited the cohort (because of death or loss to followup) are counted at the angled line. Sixty-eight patients entered the cohort after wave 2.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 1 describes demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical variables by person-years of observation. The cohort was mostly female (92%) and white (69%). HCQ users were younger compared with nonusers (47.9 versus 51.1; P < 0.0001), had a shorter disease duration (13.7 years versus 16.8; P < 0.0001), and were more likely to carry employer-based insurance (60.3% versus 51.8%; P = 0.0006). HCQ users and nonusers had similar SLAQ scores (12.9 versus 12.2; P = 0.18) although a higher proportion of HCQ users reported a recent SLE flare (51.5% versus 41.7%; P = 0.0002). Users and nonusers had similar rates of organ involvement. Users were much more likely to report having a rheumatologist as their main SLE doctor and more likely to have seen a rheumatologist at least once in the past 12 months (88% versus 66%; P < 0.0001).

Table 1. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics of 3,095 person-years of observation stratified by hydroxychloroquine use in the University of California at San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study*
CharacteristicUsing HCQ (1,696 person-years)Not using HCQ (1,399 person-years)P
  • *

    Values are the number (percentage) unless indicate otherwise. HCQ = hydroxychloroquine; SF-36 = Short Form 36 health survey; SLAQ = Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire score; SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus; DVT = deep vein thrombosis; PE = pulmonary embolism; MI = myocardial infarction.

  • N = 3,025.

  • Calculated from reported medication use, including HCQ.

Female1,558 (91.9)1,299 (92.8)0.54
Age, mean ± SD years47.9 ± 12.751.1 ± 12.5< 0.0001
Disease duration, mean ± SD years13.7 (7.7)16.8 (9.2)< 0.0001
Ethnicity  0.99
 White1,186 (69.9)965 (69.0) 
 Asian140 (8.2)130 (9.3) 
 Hispanic113 (6.7)98 (7.0) 
 African American152 (9.0)130 (9.3) 
 Other105 (6.2)76 (5.4) 
Income below poverty level186 (11.0)178 (12.7)0.33
Principal insurance  0.0006
 Employer based1,022 (60.3)724 (51.8) 
 Medicare390 (23.0)448 (32.0) 
 Medicaid104 (6.1)58 (4.2) 
 Other insurance156 (9.2)131 (9.4) 
 No insurance24 (1.4)38 (2.7) 
Education  0.38
 High school or less213 (12.6)216 (15.4) 
 Vocational/trade/some college778 (45.9)662 (47.3) 
 College394 (23.2)297 (21.2) 
 Postgraduate311 (18.3)224 (16.0) 
SF-36 physical function score, mean ± SD59.5 ± 29.057.0 ± 30.6 
SLAQ score, mean ± SD12.9 ± 7.812.2 ± 8.2 
SLE flare within 3 months873 (51.5)584 (41.7)0.0002
SLE organ involvement within 12 months   
 Kidney492 (29.0)393 (28.1)0.57
 Lung270 (15.9)234 (16.7)0.54
 DVT or PE39 (2.3)43 (3.1)0.18
 Stroke or MI67 (4.0)48 (3.4)0.45
Main SLE physician  < 0.0001
 Rheumatologist1,431 (84.4)897 (64.1) 
 Nephrologist35 (2.1)117 (8.4) 
 Internist109 (6.4)159 (11.4) 
 General practice69 (4.1)149 (10.6) 
 Other29 (1.7)41 (2.9) 
 None23 (1.4)36 (2.6) 
≥1 rheumatologist visit within 12 months1,496 (88.2)922 (65.9)< 0.0001
No. daily medications, mean ± SD2.8 ± 1.51.8 ± 1.4< 0.0001

In order to explore whether HCQ nonusers were more likely to use corticosteroids or other medications, we analyzed medication use by person-year (Table 2). Sixty percent of HCQ users also took corticosteroids versus 52% of nonusers (P = 0.02). HCQ users were more likely to take methotrexate compared with nonusers (10.4% versus 5.4%; P = 0.0003). The use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including the use of biologic agents, was similar between the 2 groups. Of the entire cohort (3,095 person-years), 69% were taking at least one DMARD (inclusive of HCQ); 13% reported taking corticosteroids and no HCQ or any other DMARD. A total of 40% of HCQ nonusers (n = 562 person years) were not taking any SLE-specific treatment (that is, they were not taking a corticosteroid or a DMARD). This group did not differ significantly from the other HCQ nonusers in demographics or socioeconomic status. However, there was a trend towards slightly lower SLAQ scores for this group (mean ± SD 10.7 ± 7.6), although 36% (n = 205) reported an SLE flare within the past 3 months.

Table 2. Medication use among 3,095 person-years of observation in the University of California at San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study*
MedicationAll patients (3,095 person-years)Using HCQ (1,696 person-years)Not using HCQ (1,399 person-years)P
  • *

    Values are the number (percentage). HCQ = hydroxychloroquine; DMARDs = disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus; NA = not applicable.

  • No steroids, HCQ, or other DMARDs.

Corticosteroids    
 Oral1,742 (56.3)1,009 (59.5)733 (52.4)0.01
 Intravenous238 (7.8)123 (7.3)115 (8.4)0.37
 Any systemic steroid1,771 (57.2)1,023 (60.3)748 (53.5)0.02
DMARDs    
 Cyclophosphamide (oral or intravenous)54 (1.8)31 (1.8)23 (1.6)0.73
 Mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine670 (21.6)354 (20.9)316 (22.6)0.47
 Methotrexate (oral or subcutaneous)253 (8.2)177 (10.4)76 (5.4)0.0003
 Biologic agent89 (2.9)45 (2.6)44 (3.2)0.61
 Any other DMARD (excluding HCQ)979 (31.6)540 (31.8)439 (31.4)0.86
No SLE-specific treatment562 (18.2)NA562 (40.2)NA
Other medications    
 Antihypertensive1,340 (43.3)681 (40.2)659 (47.1)0.01
 Anticoagulant544 (17.6)285 (16.8)259 (18.6)0.45

We examined predictors of HCQ use. Univariate analyses revealed that patients age ≥60 years, those with longer disease duration, and those without a rheumatologist as their main SLE physician were less likely to use HCQ (Table 3). Increasing SLAQ score and increasing pill burden were associated with increased likelihood of HCQ use. In a multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for all listed covariates, HCQ use was associated with shorter disease duration. For each additional 10 years of disease duration, there was a 27% decrease in the odds of taking HCQ. HCQ use was less frequent among those who obtained SLE care from nonrheumatologists compared with rheumatologists with odd ratios (95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]) of 0.51 (95% CI 0.31–0.84) for nephrologists to 0.68 (95% CI 0.56–0.83) for those reporting no SLE physician. Sensitivity analyses using 1) the number of visits to a rheumatologist as a measure of subspecialty care instead of main SLE doctor, and 2) the presence of an SLE flare within the past 3 months instead of the SLAQ score yielded nearly identical results (data not shown).

Table 3. Multiple logistic regression model predicting hydroxychloroquine use among 3,095 person-years of observation in the University of California at San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study*
 Unadjusted OR (95% CI)Adjusted OR (95% CI)
  • *

    OR = odds ratio; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; SLAQ = Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Activity Questionnaire; SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus.

  • † Number of daily medications does not include hydroxychloroquine.

  • Significant values.

Female (referent male)0.94 (0.60–1.47)0.86 (0.56–1.34)
Age, years  
 <30ReferentReferent
 30–390.85 (0.65–1.12)0.86 (0.64–1.15)
 40–490.80 (0.58–1.10)0.87 (0.61–1.23)
 50–590.77 (0.55–1.07)0.90 (0.62–1.31)
 ≥600.61 (0.43–0.87)0.76 (0.51–1.14)
Nonwhite (referent white)0.94 (0.72–1.23)0.92 (0.70–1.20)
Income below poverty line (referent above poverty)0.95 (0.79–1.15)0.95 (0.77–1.17)
Insurance  
 Employer basedReferentReferent
 Medicare0.89 (0.76–1.04)0.93 (0.80–1.09)
 Medicaid1.03 (0.72–1.48)1.03 (0.70–1.50)
 Other insurance0.94 (0.80–1.09)0.94 (0.80–1.11)
 No insurance0.97 (0.69–1.37)1.14 (0.81–1.63)
Education  
 High school or lessReferentReferent
 Vocational/trade/some college1.02 (0.81–1.27)1.02 (0.80–1.29)
 College0.99 (0.75–1.31)1.01 (0.75–1.36)
 Postgraduate1.08 (0.78–1.50)1.09 (0.77–1.54)
Disease characteristics  
 Disease duration (per 10 years)0.69 (0.60–0.79)0.72 (0.62–0.84)
 SLAQ score1.00 (1.02–6.23)1.01 (1.00–1.02)
 Number of daily medications*1.02 (1.08–7.61)1.02 (0.98–1.06)
Main SLE physician  
 RheumatologistReferentReferent
 Nephrologist0.68 (0.56–0.82)0.51 (0.31–0.84)
 Generalist0.54 (0.34–0.86)0.62 (0.44–0.87)
 None0.63 (0.46–0.86)0.68 (0.56–0.83)

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

We examined the prevalence and predictors of HCQ use in a large, diverse cohort of confirmed SLE patients derived from the community during the period 2004–2007. Overall, the prevalence of HCQ use was 55 per 100 person-years. The odds of HCQ use were significantly higher in patients who received SLE care from rheumatologists as opposed to other specialists or generalists; however, rheumatologists only prescribed HCQ in 62% of patient-years. While rheumatologist management was superior to that provided by others, there is room for improvement here as well.

Because this cohort was largely derived from community sources and only 70% of patients visited a rheumatologist on an annual basis, we expected that the rates of HCQ use might be lower than those reported from patients seen primarily at tertiary care centers. However, overall prevalence of HCQ use in this group of SLE patients was consistent with reports from referral center-based cohorts. Fessler et al report that 56% of patients in the LUMINA (LUpus in MInorities, NAture versus nurture) cohort use HCQ, and European studies have shown prevalence of HCQ use in the 48–68% range over 10–15-year periods (8, 10, 14).

Multivariate regression revealed that the groups of patients less likely to take HCQ included patients without regular rheumatologist care and those with longer disease duration. Rheumatologists are likely to be well-versed on the benefits of HCQ compared with other specialists or generalists. Patients with longer disease duration may have taken HCQ in the past and stopped because of disease quiescence, lack of perceived efficacy, or adverse effects. Unfortunately, we did not have access to the reasons for HCQ discontinuation in this study. Both physician specialty and disease duration have been reported as factors associated with low prevalence of DMARD use in both SLE patients and rheumatoid arthritis patients (16, 21).

Based on prior studies, we hypothesized that HCQ use might be more likely among patients with milder disease (11). Alternately, patients with more severe disease might be more likely to see subspecialists and be prescribed additional drugs. In our cohort, we found that HCQ users had slightly higher disease activity (SLAQ) scores compared with nonusers. Because the SLAQ lacks questions to account for renal or hematologic disease manifestations, it is possible that SLAQ scores for patients with such organ involvement were falsely low, and that SLAQ scores for patients with truly inactive disease were inflated (18); this may have biased our results toward showing no difference in disease activity between the 2 groups. However, we also noted that HCQ users were more likely to report an SLE flare within the past 3 months. It is unlikely that a self-report of SLE flare in the past 3 months would be differentially reported between the 2 groups. Furthermore, HCQ nonusers were less likely to be taking corticosteroids or methotrexate compared with HCQ users. Surprisingly, a large fraction of the HCQ nonusers (562 person-years of observation, 18% of all person-years, contributed by 238 individuals) were also not taking any SLE-specific drug (corticosteroids or DMARDs). This may reflect the personal preference of these patients to avoid any prescription medications, or perhaps very mild disease in this subgroup, although 37% of these patients reported a flare within the past 3 months.

This study has some important limitations. First, information regarding drug use was ascertained by self-report. The concordance of self-report and other measures of medication adherence (medical record review, administrative claims databases) is variable (22, 23). However, one large study has shown substantial agreement between patient interview and medical record review as sources of information regarding medication use and suggests that the impact of possible misclassification on models that predict medication use is minimal (24). Second, we do not have information on reasons for HCQ nonuse. It is possible that patients were prescribed HCQ in the past but were intolerant to it or refused its prescription for other reasons. Third, because of the phrasing of the interview question used in our primary analysis, patients who indicated they had taken a drug during the last 12 months may have been irregular or intermittent users. However, year-to-year persistence of HCQ use was high: over 80% of HCQ users in a wave continued to use HCQ in the subsequent wave; this finding is consistent with studies of other cohorts (5, 25).

The positive effects of HCQ on measures of disease activity and organ damage suggest that patients with SLE should be using this drug in the absence of adverse effects. The potential effects of HCQ on cardiovascular risk factors, including lipids, diabetes mellitus, and thrombosis, and its low cost also argue that it should be a staple of SLE care. The present study indicates that current practice does not meet this goal. While patients who did not receive rheumatology care were less likely to receive HCQ, neither did many of those who did receive rheumatology care. Finally, the inverse relationship between disease duration and HCQ use as well as the physician and patient factors that contribute to this under-utilization will need to be better understood.

Our results should be confirmed and extended through further research. In addition, quality improvement programs should be initiated to expand rheumatology care for SLE patients and the use of HCQ by all specialties. Similar programs for drug utilization in diabetes mellitus and congestive heart failure provide examples of the positive impacts of such efforts (26, 27).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and all authors approved the final version to be submitted for publication. Dr. Schmajuk had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study conception and design. Schmajuk, Yazdany, Yelin.

Acquisition of data. Trupin, Yelin.

Analysis and interpretation of data. Schmajuk, Yazdany, Trupin, Yelin.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Wallace DJ. Antimalarials: the ‘real’ advance in lupus. Lupus 2001; 10: 3857.
  • 2
    Levy RA, Vilela VS, Cataldo MJ, Ramos RC, Duarte JL, Tura BR, et al. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in lupus pregnancy: double-blind and placebo-controlled study. Lupus 2001; 10: 4014.
  • 3
    Tsakonas E, Joseph L, Esdaile JM, Choquette D, Senecal JL, Cividino A, et al, and the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group. A long-term study of hydroxychloroquine withdrawal on exacerbations in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 1998; 7: 805.
  • 4
    Kasitanon N, Fine DM, Haas M, Magder LS, Petri M. Hydroxychloroquine use predicts complete renal remission within 12 months among patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil therapy for membranous lupus nephritis. Lupus 2006; 15: 36670.
  • 5
    Petri M. Hydroxychloroquine use in the Baltimore Lupus Cohort: effects on lipids, glucose and thrombosis. Lupus 1996; 1: S1622.
  • 6
    Kaiser R, Cleveland CM, Criswell LA. Risk and protective factors for thrombosis in systemic lupus erythematosus: results from a large, multi-ethnic cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68: 23841.
  • 7
    Wasko MC, Hubert HB, Lingala VB, Elliott JR, Luggen ME, Fries JF, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and risk of diabetes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA 2007; 298: 18793.
  • 8
    Fessler BJ, Alarcon GS, McGwin G, Roseman J, Bastian HM, Friedman AW, et al, for the LUMINA Study Group. Systemic lupus erythematosus in three ethnic groups. XVI. Association of hydroxychloroquine use with reduced risk of damage accrual. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52: 147380.
  • 9
    Ruiz-Irastorza G, Egurbide MV, Pijoan JI, Garmendia M, Villar I, Martinez-Berriotxoa A, et al. Effect of antimalarials on thrombosis and survival in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2006; 15: 57783.
  • 10
    Molad Y, Gorshtein A, Wysenbeek AJ, Guedj D, Majadla R, Weinberger A, et al. Protective effect of hydroxychloroquine in systemic lupus erythematosus: prospective long-term study of an Israeli cohort. Lupus 2002; 11: 35661.
  • 11
    Alarcon GS, McGwin G, Bertoli AM, Fessler BJ, Calvo-Alen J, Bastian HM, et al. Effect of hydroxychloroquine on the survival of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: data from LUMINA, a multiethnic US cohort (LUMINA L). Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66: 116872.
  • 12
    Ruiz-Irastorza G, Ramos-Casals M, Brito-Zeron P, Khamashta MA. Clinical efficacy and side effects of antimalarials in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review. Ann Rheum Dis 2009. E-pub ahead of print.
  • 13
    Ruiz-Irastorza G, Khamashta MA. Hydroxychloroquine: the cornerstone of lupus therapy. Lupus 2008; 17: 2713.
  • 14
    Fernandez M, McGwin G Jr, Bertoli AM, Calvo-Alen J, Vila LM, Reveille JD, et al. Discontinuation rate and factors predictive of the use of hydroxychloroquine in LUMINA, a multiethnic US cohort (LUMINA XL). Lupus 2006; 15: 7004.
  • 15
    Cervera R, Khamashta MA, Font J, Sebastiani GD, Gil A, Lavilla P, et al, and the European Working Party on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Morbidity and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus during a 10-year period: a comparison of early and late manifestations in a cohort of 1,000 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003; 82: 299308.
  • 16
    Molina MJ, Mayor AM, Franco AE, Morell CA, Lopez MA, Vila LM. Utilization of health services and prescription patterns among lupus patients followed by primary care physicians and rheumatologists in Puerto Rico. Ethn Dis 2008; 18 Suppl 2: S20510.
  • 17
    Tan EM, Cohen AS, Fries JF, Masi AT, McShane DJ, Rothfield NF, et al. The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1982; 25: 12717.
  • 18
    Karlson EW, Daltroy LH, Rivest C, Ramsey-Goldman R, Wright EA, Partridge AJ, et al. Validation of a Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) for population studies. Lupus 2003; 12: 2806.
  • 19
    Yazdany J, Yelin EH, Panopalis P, Trupin L, Julian L, Katz PP. Validation of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Activity Questionnaire in a large observational cohort. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59: 13643.
  • 20
    Cohen JW, Monheit AC, Beauregard KM, Cohen SB, Lefkowitz DC, Potter DE, et al. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: a national health information resource. Inquiry 1996–1997; 33: 37389.
  • 21
    Schmajuk G, Schneeweiss S, Katz JN, Weinblatt ME, Setoguchi S, Avorn J, et al. Treatment of older adult patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis: improved but not optimal. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57: 92834.
  • 22
    Garber MC, Nau DP, Erickson SR, Aikens JE, Lawrence JB. The concordance of self-report with other measures of medication adherence: a summary of the literature. Med Care 2004; 42: 64952.
  • 23
    Tisnado DM, Adams JL, Liu H, Damberg CL, Chen WP, Hu FA, et al. What is the concordance between the medical record and patient self-report as data sources for ambulatory care? Med Care 2006; 44: 13240.
  • 24
    Korthuis PT, Asch S, Mancewicz M, Shapiro MF, Mathews WC, Cunningham WE, et al. Measuring medication: do interviews agree with medical record and pharmacy data? Med Care 2002; 40: 127082.
  • 25
    Morand EF, McCloud PI, Littlejohn GO. Continuation of long-term treatment with hydroxychloroquine in systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1992; 51; 131821.
  • 26
    Guzek J, Guzek S, Murphy K, Gallacher P, Lesneski C. Improving diabetes care using a multitiered quality improvement model. Am J Med Qual 2009; 24: 50511.
  • 27
    Ansari M, Shlipak MG, Heidenreich PA, van Ostaeyen D, Pohl EC, Browner WS, et al. Improving guideline adherence: a randomized trial evaluating strategies to increase beta-blocker use in heart failure. Circulation 2003; 107: 2799804.