Hydroxychloroquine Blood Levels in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Clarifying Dosing Controversies and Improving Adherence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is used for its effect on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity and longterm benefits. This can be limited by adherence. One way to assess adherence is to measure blood levels. Conflicting data exist regarding blood levels and disease activity. There is disagreement about dosing; rheumatologists recommend weight-based dosing while some other specialists advocate height-based "ideal body weight" dosing. METHODS: Patients were prescribed HCQ not exceeding 6.5 mg/kg (max 400 mg/day). In hemodialysis, the dose was 200 mg after each session, and in renal insufficiency it was 200 mg/day. Levels were measured at each visit with a therapeutic range of 500-2000 ng/ml. Patients were divided according to baseline blood level. To assess the effect of measurement and counseling on adherence, we compared the proportion of patients with a level of 500 ng/ml or higher based on the number of prior assessments. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with HCQ levels in the therapeutic range differed significantly by age, sex, and Vitamin D level. There was a trend toward lower levels with renal failure. Blood levels were similar regardless of height and ideal body weight. Comparing those with undetectable, subtherapeutic, and therapeutic levels, disease activity decreased (SLE Disease Activity Index 2.92, 2.36, and 2.20, p = 0.04 for trend). At first, 56% were therapeutic, and by the third measurement this increased to 80% (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was a trend toward higher disease activity with lower HCQ levels. Renal failure dosing led to suboptimum levels. We show that weight-based dosing (max 400 mg daily) is appropriate and that height does not appear to influence levels. Measurement, counseling, and repeated testing can increase adherence rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".