Systematic review of hydroxychloroquine use in pregnant patients with autoimmune diseases
© Sperber et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
Received: 06 November 2008
Accepted: 13 May 2009
Published: 13 May 2009
The purpose of this study is to compare the incidence of congenital defects, spontaneous abortions, number of live births, fetal death and pre-maturity in women with autoimmune diseases taking HCQ during pregnancy.
The authors searched MEDLINE, Cochrane data base, Ovid-Currents Clinical Medicine, Ovid-Embase:Drugs and Pharmacology, EBSCO, Web of Science, and SCOPUS using the search terms HCQ and/or pregnancy. We attempted to identify all clinical trials from 1980 to 2007 regardless of language or publication status. We also searched Cochrane Central Library and http://www.Clinical trials.gov for clinical trials of HCQ and pregnancy. Data were extracted onto standardized forms and were confirmed.
The odds ratio (OR) of congenital defects in live births of women taking HCQ during pregnancy was 0.66, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.25, 1.75. The OR of a live birth for women taking HCQ during pregnancy was 1.05 (95% CI 0.58, 1.93). The OR of spontaneous abortion in women taking HCQ during pregnancy was 0.92 (95% CI 0.49, 1.72). The OR of fetal deaths in women taking HCQ during pregnancy was 0.97 (95% CI 0.14, 6.54). The OR of pre-mature birth defined as birth before 37 weeks in women taking HCQ during pregnancy was 1.10 (95% CI 0.75, 1.61).
HCQ is not associated with any increased risk of congenital defects, spontaneous abortions, fetal death, pre-maturity and decreased numbers of live births in patients with auto-immune diseases.
The anti-malarial drugs Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is widely used to treat various rheumatic diseases . The mechanism of action of this drug is to increase the pH in acidic vesicles, inhibiting receptor mediated endocytosis that affects many cellular functions including antigen presentation, toll receptor signaling and post-transcriptional modification of proteins [2–4]. Convincing evidence has accumulated over the past years demonstrating the efficacy of HCQ in the treatment of auto-immune diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [5, 6]. Since many rheumatic diseases affect women of child bearing age, there have been concerns regarding potential teratogenic and toxic effects of the drug on the developing fetus [7, 8].
Malformations and other abnormalities after treatment with higher than the recommended dose of (Chloroquine) CQ through pregnancy were reported after intrauterine exposure to 500 mg daily of CQ in 3 siblings . In animal model systems the drug accumulates in the pigmented cells in the eye [10, 11]. Dose-dependent retinal toxicity has long been recognized as the major side effect of HCQ [10, 11]. CQ crosses the placenta during pregnancy . In an evidence-based guideline evaluating the risks and benefits of drug therapies during pregnancy, it was recommended to continue HCQ during pregnancy and lactation . Although there have been a number of reviews regarding the use of HCQ during pregnancy [14–16], to date there has been no meta-analysis analyzing the effect of HCQ on fetal outcomes in women with various auto-immune diseases. This systematic review contains a meta-analysis of the available clinical studies investigating the use of HCQ during pregnancy and will focus on the risk of congenital defects, number of live births, spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths and pre-maturity in fetuses born to women taking HCQ.
Materials and methods
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
We used previously published methods to determine the quality of the observational studies used in systematic reviews [17, 18]. The control groups in the included studies were similar to the HCQ groups for sex, age, criteria for SLE, DLE, RA or other autoimmune diseases as established by American College of Rheumatology (ACR). Two of the authors extracted all of the data onto a standardized form that was confirmed by the corresponding author. The primary outcomes considered in this review were congenital defects, spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths, pre-maturity (birth before 37 weeks of gestation) and live births. Two raters reviewed and scored the articles independently by using a checklist designed by Downs and Black . In cases of divergence of the results between the two raters, a third rater reviewed the articles and rated the quality scores again to choose the most plausible results. The checklist designed by Downs and Black was developed for the purpose of quality assessment of both randomized and nonrandomized studies with health interventions and consists of five subscales: reporting, internal validity bias, internal validity confounding, external validity, and power . Because six items in the original list were related to randomization, and power calculation, their scores were counted as zero. The maximum score on the quality scales is 31 points; these were summed and a higher score is considered to be an indicator of a better quality study. For observational studies, a quality score of 12 or greater is considered excellent [19, 20].
Data Synthesis and Analysis
Data for congenital defects, spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths, pre-maturity (Birth before 37 weeks of gestation) and live births were pooled and analyzed by using the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) . We used Review Manager 4.2 for the analysis. A fixed effect model of the inverse variance method was used when the effects were assumed to be homogenous. The random effect model of the DerSimonian and Laird approach was used when they were assumed to be heterogeneous . To test the publication bias, funnel plots were drawn with the treatment effect measure on the horizontal axis and the study size on the vertical axis, and Harbord test was performed [22, 23]. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous variables in this study. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by using chi-square and I2 tests, a p value of less than 0.1 and an I2 value of 50% were considered high .
We calculated the number of subjects that would have to be included in the meta-analysis for each of the variables, congenital defects, spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths, pre-maturity and live births, to have a power of 0.80 and a one sided p value of 0.05 in pregnant patients taking HCQ . The likelihood that we would be able to detect an association between HCQ and congenital defects, live births, spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths, and pre-maturity is dependent on the magnitude of that association. We can determine an effect size of 0.20 for congenital defects, live births, spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths, and pre-maturity given the number of pregnancies that are included in this analysis (290 pregnancies on HCQ, 341 pregnancy controls) .
Data from randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) should not be combined with observational studies in a meta-analysis [17, 18]. Since one of the observational studies was a case controlled study, we used odds ratios (OR) for the study variables .
Role of Funding Source
This study was not funded by any outside agency or pharmaceutical company.
The literature search for HCQ and/or pregnancy identified 82 abstracts. After review of the abstracts and exclusion of non-trials and trials that did not compare pregnant women with auto-immune diseases taking HCQ with a control group, we identified 5 studies of interest [27–31] (Figure 1). The studies were published within the past 15 years. Searches of the Cochrane Library and of the http://www.Clinical Trials.gov website did not return any entries of HCQ and pregnancy. This was a safety study which presents considerable difficulties in obtaining sufficient numbers of patients to include in the meta-analysis. Since there are more observational studies than experimental studies in determining the safety of HCQ in pregnancy we included studies of any design for the meta-analysis. . Seventy-seven articles were excluded including 68 with no non-HCQ control group and 3 with no outcomes of interest (Figure 1).
Quality assessment of the articles
Four of the 5 studies were observational [27–30] and one was a randomized placebo controlled double-blinded trial . Three of the 4 observational studies were published as full manuscripts [27–30] and one was presented as an abstract . One of the observational studies was a case controlled study  while the other 3 were cohort studies [27–29]. The first observational study had 69 Lupus patients, 13 unclassified connective tissue disease and 8 patients with primary Sjogren's syndrome , the second observational study included 197 women all diagnosed with Lupus , the third observational study also followed 86 Lupus patients , as well as the fourth observational study 142 women with connective tissue diseases  (Additional file 1, Table S1). Only one study was conducted in the United States .
The quality of the studies we identified based on the Downs and Black checklist ranged from 20 to 25. Although the double-blinded placebo controlled trail was of the highest quality we did not include it in our analysis  for statistical reasons as noted previously [17, 18]. We used the Harbord test to investigate funnel plot asymmetry in the analysis because we measured dichotomous variables . This test avoids the mathematical association between log odds ratio and its standard error proposed by Egger et al  when there is a substantial intervention effect, while retaining power compared with alternative tests. However, false-positives may occur in the presence of substantial between-study heterogeneity. We did not observe any substantial heterogeneity in the studies in the meta-analysis and no publication bias.
OR of congenital defects and live births
Consonant with the results obtained for the OR of congenital defects, all 4 of the included studies did not report any differences in the OR of live births comparing women who took HCQ compared to the control group (Additional file 1, Table S2 and Figure 2b.) The OR for live births of the pooled data in the HCQ group compared to the control group was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.61, 1.99) (Figure 2b).
OR of spontaneous abortion and fetal death
In line with the results for spontaneous abortions, all 4 studies reported the OR of fetal death [25–28] (Additional file 1, Table S2 and Figure 3b). The pooled OR for fetal death was 0.94 (95% CI 0.14, 6.54) which again favored the patients taking HCQ. There is variability in the fetal death rate probably due to the small sample size.
OR of prematurity
Our systematic review provides evidence for the use of HCQ during pregnancy for women with auto-immune diseases. We identified 3 cohort studies [27–29] and 1 case-controlled study  comparing HCQ treatment with no HCQ treatment in pregnant women with auto-immune diseases (Figure 1 and Additional file 1, Tables S1 and S2). We attempted to identify all relevant studies regarding HCQ and pregnancy by not restricting our literature search to the English language. It is still possible that we may have inadvertently omitted other studies that were not identified in the literature searches of the different databases.
Although the Harbord test for dichotomous variables did not indicate publication bias, citation bias, and database bias, the number of studies included in our meta-analysis was only 4 so that it is possible that it may not be able to distinguish chance from real asymmetry in the funnel plot. The quality of the studies that were included in this meta-analysis as determined by the Downs and Black checklist was excellent despite the fact that they were no randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials [19, 20]. The scores are listed in Additional file 1, Table S1.
We did not observe any heterogeneity in the results of the different studies (Figures 2a, b, 3a, and 4) that could have arisen because of differences in doses of HCQ (200 mg compared to 400 mg), length of follow up after birth, and between auto-immune diseases (SLE, DLE, RA, Sjogren's syndrome), allowing the use of a fixed effect model for. The only significant heterogeneous result between the studies was the increased risk of fetal deaths (Figure 3b) noted where the results were analyzed by using a random-effects model.
Our study was limited by the lack placebo controlled double-blinded studies that compared HCQ therapy with a control group. The patient populations included in the studies were fairly homogenous. All of the studies included pregnant females of child bearing age with autoimmune disease predominantly Lupus who met the ACR criteria for diagnosis, all of the patients and the fetuses were exposed to HCQ at the time of conception and throughout the pregnancy, all of the studies had a control group who were not exposed to the drug, and all reported similar outcomes.
We did not include the 1 RCT  because of the difficulties of combining different study designs in meta-analysis as noted above [17, 18]. This study also found no differences in congenital defects, number of live births, fetal death, and pre-maturity in patients who were treated with HCQ compared to those who were not treated with HCQ. Despite the fact that we performed a meta-analysis, our studies were underpowered to detect an association between congenital defects congenital defects, spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths, pre-maturity and live births, if the effect of HCQ is less than 0.2 . We did consider adding isolated case reports in our analysis given the rarity of the occurrence of congenital malformations and other obstetrical complication of this drug [35–40]. However, we did not include these patients in the statistical analysis because there were no control groups.
There have been numerous studies using CQ prophylaxis for malaria during pregnancy. CQ, a pharmacologic analogue of HCQ has been used in Europe to treat auto-immune diseases and its mechanism of action is identical to HCQ. In general the doses used for malarial prophylaxis are less than those used to treat auto-immune diseases. There is a large meta-analysis published by the Cochrane database that included 12,638 patients focused on malaria prevention . No increase in congenital malformations, live births, spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths or pre-maturity was noted in patients who used CQ compared to controls. Although these studies do not directly prove that CQ is safe for pregnant women with auto-immune diseases, it is further evidence of the safety of anti-malaria drugs during pregnancy.
Two of the included studies by Clowse et. al.  and Frassi et al  had an increase in fetal death (OR 4.79 95% CI 0.78, 29.57 and OR 5.40 95% CI 0.26,114.28) in the placebo while another study by Costedoat-Chalumeau et al  had an OR of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01, 0.60) that favored HCQ. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is the increased number of patients with anti-cardiolipin antibodies in the HCQ group of Clowse et al  and Frassi et al  that may have contributed to the high incidence of fetal deaths seen in both studies.
Since anti-malarials cross the placenta, they have the potential to cause congenital defects . The first reports documenting congenital abnormalities and accumulation of the drug in the eye were described in infants whose mothers received chloroquine (CQ) [9, 33]. However, recent reports including a Cochrane meta-analysis have demonstrated that CQ in low doses is safe as malaria prophylaxis during pregnancy . In addition to the 4 studies that we included in this report, there have been several uncontrolled studies that have examined the effect of HCQ therapy on ocular toxicity in babies born to women taking the drug during pregnancy [35–37]. Two of these studies performed comprehensive ophthalmologic examinations of infants whose mothers took HCQ during pregnancy and found no evidence of ocular toxicity [29, 31]. All of these studies have documented the safety of HCQ in infants whose mothers took the medication during pregnancy. The total number of infants examined in these 3 studies is 96.
Another benefit of HCQ during pregnancy is its effect on reducing disease activity. Of note Clowse et al.  and Levy et al.  made observations of lupus outcomes in a cohort of women with SLE and reported the impact of HCQ treatment cessation on SLE activity during pregnancy. Clowse et al.  found that women who stopped taking HCQ had increased lupus activity and increased lupus flares during pregnancy. High activity lupus was defined as a physician's estimate of activity (PEA) greater than 2 occurred in twice as many pregnancies in which HCQ treatment was stopped as in those in which HCQ was continued. The rate of flare was also higher among women who stopped the medication compared with those who either continued taking it or who never took it. These flares occurred throughout pregnancy. More women who discontinued HCQ treatment had SLEDAI scores greater than 4 during pregnancy and this remained elevated when adjusted for year of delivery, anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome (APS), age, ethnicity, and prior history of lupus nephritis.
The types of lupus activity that were best controlled by HCQ were arthritis and constitutional symptoms. HCQ did not prevent the more severe complications of proteinuria or thrombocytopenia. Furthermore, the authors also evaluated the use of Prednisone and fewer women who continued HCQ required high-dose corticosteroids, defined as either a daily dose of Prednisone of at least 20 mg or pulse steroids. Similar to the observation of Clowse et al. , Levy et al.  noted that after delivery Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores of the placebo group were not significantly different from pre-treatment scores while in the HCQ group a statistically significant improvement in the score was found; in the HCQ group there were no flares, and there was a statistically significant improvement in the SLEDAI score at delivery when compared to the placebo group.
In conclusion, based on the findings of this meta-analysis, HCQ is not associated with any increased risk of congenital defect, spontaneous abortion, fetal death, pre-maturity or decreased numbers of live births in pregnant patients with auto-immune diseases. Our data demonstrate that HCQ is safe for use during pregnancy.
- Rynes RI: Antimalarial drugs in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Br J Rheumatol. 1997, 36: 799-805. 10.1093/rheumatology/36.7.799.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mellman I, Fuchs R, Helerius A: Acidification of the endocytic and exocytic pathways. Annu Rev Biochem. 1986, 55: 663-700. 10.1146/annurev.bi.55.070186.003311.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Oda K, Kariyama Y, Yomada E, Ikahara Y: Effects of weakly basic amines on proteolytic processing and terminal glycosylation of secretory proteins in rat hepatocytes. Biochem J. 1986, 240: 739-745.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kyburg D, Bretano F, Gay S: Mode of action of Hydroxychloroquine in RA-evidence of an inhibiting effect on toll-like receptor signaling. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2006, 1: 458-459. 10.1038/ncprheum0292.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fessler BJ, Alarcon GS, McGwin G, Roseman J, Bastian HM, Friedman AW, 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: 1473-1480. 10.1002/art.21039.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Emery P, Suarez-Almazor M: Rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Evid. 2003, 9: 1349-1371.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vroom F, de Walle HE, Laar van de MA, Brouwers JR, Berg de Jong-van den LT: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in pregnancy: current status and implications for the future. Drug Saf. 2006, 29: 845-63. 10.2165/00002018-200629100-00003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Temprano KK, Bandlamudi R, Moore T: Antirheumatic drugs in pregnancy and lactation. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 35: 112-21. 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2005.05.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hart CW, Naunton RF: The ototoxicity of chloroquine phosphate. Arch Otolaryngol. 1964, 80: 407-412.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Santaella RM, Fraunfelder FW: Ocular adverse effects associated with systemic medications: recognition and management. Drugs. 2007, 67: 75-93. 10.2165/00003495-200767010-00006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stafford-Brady FJ, Urowitz MB, Gladman DD, Easterbrook M: Lupus retinopathy: patterns, associations, and prognosis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988, 31: 1105-1110. 10.1002/art.1780310904.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Costedoat-Chalumeau N, Amoura Z, Aymard G, Le TH, Wechsler B, Vauthier D, Dermer ME, Darbois Y, Piette JC: Evidence of transplacental passage of hydroxychloroquine in humans. Arthritis Rheum. 2002, 46: 1123-4. 10.1002/art.10150.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ostensen M, Khamashta M, Lockshin M, Parke A: Anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs and reproduction. Arthritis Research and Therapy. 2006, 8: 1-19. 10.1186/ar1957.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Costedoat-Chalumeau N, Amoura Z, Huong DL, Lechat P, Piette JC: Safety of hydroxychloroquine in pregnant patients with connective tissue diseases. Review of the literature. Autoimmun Rev. 2005, 4: 111-5. 10.1016/j.autrev.2004.11.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Borden MB, Parke AL: Antimalarial drugs in systemic lupus erythematosus: use in pregnancy. Drug Saf. 2001, 24: 1055-63. 10.2165/00002018-200124140-00004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Khamashta MA, Buchanan NM, Hughes GR: The use of hydroxychloroquine in lupus pregnancy: the British experience. Lupus. 1996, 5 (Suppl 1): S65-6. 10.1177/096120339600500114.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2008-12. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, eds: Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2002, BMJ Books: London, 2Google Scholar
- Downs SH, Black N: The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomized and non-randomized studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998, 6: 377-84. 10.1136/jech.52.6.377.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Martell BA, O'Connor PG, Kerns RD, Becker WC, Morales KH, Kosten RD, Fiellin FA: Systematic Review: Opioid Treatment for Chronic Back Pain: Prevalence, Efficacy, and Association with Addiction. Ann Intern Med. 2007, 146: 116-127.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 4.2 for Windows. 2003, Copenhagen: The Nordic CentreGoogle Scholar
- DerSimonian R, Liard N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA: A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2006, 25: 3443-57. 10.1002/sim.2380.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ: Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combing results from several studies in a meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews and Healthcare: meta-analysis in context. Edited by: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG. 2002, London BMJ PublicationsGoogle Scholar
- Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003, 327: 577-560. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hully SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady D, Hearst N, Newman TB: Designing clinical research. 2001, Philadelphia: Lipponcott Williams, and Wilkens, 65-91. 2Google Scholar
- Clowse ME, Magder L, Witter F, Petri M: Hydroxychloroquine in lupus pregnancy. Arthritis Rheum. 2006, 54: 3640-3647. 10.1002/art.22159.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Costedoat-Chalumeau N, Amoura Z, Duhaut P, Huong DL, Sebbough D, Wechsler B, Vauthier D, Denjoy I, Lupoglazoff JM, Piette JC: Safety of hydroxychloroquine in pregnant patients with connective tissue diseases: a study of one hundred thirty-three cases compared with a control group. Arthritis Rheum. 2003, 48: 3207-11. 10.1002/art.11304.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Buchanan NM, Toubi E, Khamashta MA, Lima F, Kerslake S, Hughes GR: Hydroxychloroquine and lupus pregnancy: review of a series of 36 cases. Ann Rheum Dis. 1996, 55: 486-468. 10.1136/ard.55.7.486.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Frassi M, Biasini C, Taglieti M, Daneli E: Hydroxychloroquine in pregnant patients with rheumatic disease: a case control observation of 76 treated pregnancies. Lupus. 2004, 13: 755-Google Scholar
- Levy RA, Vilela VS, Cataldo MJ, Ramos RC, Duarte JL, Tura BR, Albuquerque EM, Jesus NR: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in lupus pregnancy: double-blind and placebo-controlled study. Lupus. 2001, 10: 401-404. 10.1191/096120301678646137.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G: Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine. 2003, London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 87-96.Google Scholar
- Ulberg S, Lindquist NG, Sjostrand SE: Accumulation of chorioretinotoxic drugs in the foetal eye. Nature. 1970, 227: 1257-1258. 10.1038/2271257a0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Garner P, Gülmezoglu AM: Drugs for preventing malaria in pregnant women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2006, CD000169-4Google Scholar
- Motta M, Tincani A, Faden D, Zinzini E, Lojacono A, Marchesi A, Frassi M, Biasini C, Zatti S, Chirico G: Follow-up of infants exposed to hydroxychloroquine given to mothers during pregnancy and lactation. J Perinatol. 2005, 25: 86-9. 10.1038/sj.jp.7211208.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Motta M, Tincani A, Faden D, Zinzini E, Chirico G: Antimalarial agents in pregnancy. Lancet. 2002, 359: 524-5. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07643-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Klinger G, Morad Y, Westall CA, Laskin C, Spitzer KA, Koren G, Ito S, Buncic RJ: Ocular toxicity and antenatal exposure to chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for rheumatic diseases. Lancet. 2001, 358: 813-4. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06004-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Parke A, West B: Hydroxychloroquine in pregnant patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 1996, 23: 1715-8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Levy M, Buskila D, Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Koren G: Pregnancy outcome following first trimester exposure to chloroquine. Am J Perinatol. 1991, 8: 174-178. 10.1055/s-2007-999371.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Suhonen: Hydroxychloroquine administration in pregnancy. Arch Dermatol. 1983, 119: 185-6. 10.1001/archderm.119.3.185a.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Petri M: Systemic lupus erythematosus and pregnancy. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1994, 13: 732-739.Google Scholar
- Kitridou RC, Mintz G: The fetus in systemic lupus erythematous. Dubois's lupus erthymatosus. Edited by: Wallace DJ, Hahn BH. 1992, Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 508-515. 4Google Scholar
- Mintz G, Niz J, Guttierez G, Garcia Alonso A, Karchmer S: Prospective study of pregnancy in systemic lupus erythematosus. Results of a multidisciplinary approach. J Rheumatol. 1986, 13: 732-739.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lockshin MD: Lupus pregnancy. Clin Rheum Dis. 1985, 11: 611-632.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lockshin MD, Reinitz E, Druzin ML, Murrman M, Este D: Lupus pregnancy case-control prospective study demonstrate absence of lupus exacerbation during or after pregnancy. Am J Med. 1984, 77: 893-888. 10.1016/0002-9343(84)90538-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Petri M, Allbritton J: Fetal outcome of lupus pregnancy: A retrospective case-controlled study of the Hopkins lupus cohort. J Rheumatol. 1993, 20: 650-666.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nossent HC, Swaak TJG: Sysyemic lupus erythematosus. VI: Analysis of the interrelationship with pregnancy. J Rheumatol. 1990, 17: 771-776.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Van Walraven C, Mahon JL, Maher D, Bohm C, Loupecis A: Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample size calculations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999, 52: 717-723. 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00050-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.