Evaluation of a New Model of Care for People with Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy: The EMERALD Study.

PURPOSE: The increasing diabetes prevalence and advent of new treatments for its major visual-threatening complications (diabetic macular edema [DME] and proliferative diabetic retinopathy [PDR]), which require frequent life-long follow-up, have increased hospital demands markedly. Subsequent delays in patient's evaluation and treatment are causing sight loss. Strategies to increase capacity are needed urgently. The retinopathy (EMERALD) study tested diagnostic accuracy, acceptability, and costs of a new health care pathway for people with previously treated DME or PDR. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, case-referent, cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study undertaken in 13 hospitals in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes previously successfully treated DME or PDR who, at the time of enrollment, had active or inactive disease. METHODS: A new health care pathway entailing multimodal imaging (spectral-domain OCT for DME, and 7-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] and ultra-widefield [UWF] fundus images for PDR) interpreted by trained nonmedical staff (ophthalmic graders) to detect reactivation of disease was compared with the current standard care (face-to-face examination by ophthalmologists). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: sensitivity of the new pathway. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: specificity; agreement between pathways; costs; acceptability; proportions requiring subsequent ophthalmologist assessment, unable to undergo imaging, and with inadequate images or indeterminate findings. RESULTS: The new pathway showed sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-99%) and specificity of 31% (95% CI, 23%-40%) to detect DME. For PDR, sensitivity and specificity using 7-field ETDRS images (85% [95% CI, 77%-91%] and 48% [95% CI, 41%-56%], respectively) or UWF images (83% [95% CI, 75%-89%] and 54% [95% CI, 46%-61%], respectively) were comparable. For detection of high-risk PDR, sensitivity and specificity were higher when using UWF images (87% [95% CI, 78%-93%] and 49% [95% CI, 42%-56%], respectively, for UWF versus 80% [95% CI, 69-88%] and 40% [95% CI, 34%-47%], respectively, for 7-field ETDRS images). Participants preferred ophthalmologists' assessments; in their absence, they preferred immediate feedback by graders, maintaining periodic ophthalmologist evaluations. When compared with the current standard of care, the new pathway could save £1390 per 100 DME visits and between £461 and £1189 per 100 PDR visits. CONCLUSIONS: The new pathway has acceptable sensitivity and would release resources. Users' suggestions should guide implementation.

Multimodal imaging interpreted by graders to detect re-activation of diabetic eye disease in previously treated patients: the EMERALD diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Owing to the increasing prevalence of diabetes, the workload related to diabetic macular oedema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy is rising, making it difficult for hospital eye services to meet demands. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of a new pathway using multimodal imaging interpreted by ophthalmic graders to detect reactivation of diabetic macular oedema/proliferative diabetic retinopathy in previously treated patients. DESIGN: This was a prospective, case-referent, cross-sectional diagnostic study. SETTING: The setting was ophthalmic clinics in 13 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with previously successfully treated diabetic macular oedema/proliferative diabetic retinopathy in one/both eyes in whom, at the time of enrolment, diabetic macular oedema/proliferative diabetic retinopathy could be active or inactive. METHODS: For the ophthalmic grader pathway, review of the spectral domain optical coherence tomography scans to detect diabetic macular oedema, and seven-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study/ultra-wide field fundus images to detect proliferative diabetic retinopathy, by trained ophthalmic graders. For the current standard care pathway (reference standard), ophthalmologists examined patients face to face by slit-lamp biomicroscopy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy and, in addition, spectral domain optical coherence tomography imaging for diabetic macular oedema. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was sensitivity of the ophthalmic grader pathway to detect active diabetic macular oedema/proliferative diabetic retinopathy. The secondary outcomes were specificity, agreement between pathways, cost-consequences, acceptability and the proportion of patients requiring subsequent ophthalmologist assessment, unable to undergo imaging and with inadequate quality images/indeterminate findings. It was assumed for the main analysis that all patients in whom graders diagnosed active disease or were 'unsure' or images were 'ungradable' required examination by an ophthalmologist. RESULTS: Eligible participants with active and inactive diabetic macular oedema (152 and 120 participants, respectively) and active and inactive proliferative diabetic retinopathy (111 and 170 participants, respectively) were recruited. Under the main analysis, graders had a sensitivity of 97% (142/147) (95% confidence interval 92% to 99%) and specificity of 31% (35/113) (95% confidence interval 23% to 40%) to detect diabetic macular oedema. For proliferative diabetic retinopathy, graders had a similar sensitivity and specificity using seven-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [sensitivity 85% (87/102), 95% confidence interval 77% to 91%; specificity 48% (77/160), 95% confidence interval 41% to 56%] or ultra-wide field imaging [sensitivity 83% (87/105), 95% confidence interval 75% to 89%; specificity 54% (86/160), 95% confidence interval 46% to 61%]. Participants attending focus groups expressed preference for face-to-face evaluations by ophthalmologists. In the ophthalmologists' absence, patients voiced the need for immediate feedback following grader's assessments, maintaining periodic evaluations by ophthalmologists. Graders and ophthalmologists were supportive of the new pathway. When compared with the reference standard (current standard pathway), the new grader pathway could save £1390 per 100 patients in the review of people with diabetic macular oedema and, depending on the imaging modality used, between £461 and £1189 per 100 patients in the review of people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. CONCLUSIONS: For people with diabetic macular oedema, the ophthalmic grader pathway appears safe and cost saving. The sensitivity of the new pathway to detect active proliferative diabetic retinopathy was lower, but may still be considered acceptable for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy previously treated with laser. Suggestions from focus group discussions should be taken into consideration if the new pathway is introduced to ensure its acceptability to users. LIMITATIONS: Lack of fundus fluorescein angiography to confirm diagnosis of active proliferative diabetic retinopathy. FUTURE WORK: Could refinement of the new pathway increase its sensitivity to detect proliferative diabetic retinopathy? Could artificial intelligence be used for automated reading of images in this previously treated population? TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10856638 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03490318. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology AssessmentVol. 25, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

More and more people are developing diabetes. Diabetic macular oedema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy are complications of diabetes, which could cause blindness. Thus, people with diabetic macular oedema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy need to be treated in a timely manner and reviewed in clinic for life. The population in the world is ageing. As a result, there are more people with eye diseases. There are also more treatments now for people with eye diseases. The workload in hospitals is increasing, making it difficult for the NHS to cope with the demand. There are not enough ophthalmologists (eye doctors) to look after patients. Delayed appointments and treatment mean that patients may lose sight. The goal of EMERALD (Effectiveness of Multimodal imaging for the Evaluation of Retinal oedema And new vesseLs in Diabetic retinopathy) was to see if patients with treated and stable diabetic macular oedema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy could be followed by 'ophthalmic graders', who are not doctors but are trained to diagnose diabetic macular oedema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy. In EMERALD, trained ophthalmic graders examined photographs of the back of the eye of people with diabetic macular oedema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy. They checked if diabetic macular oedema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy remain inactive. If so, patients could continue follow-up with the ophthalmic graders. If diabetic macular oedema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy were active, graders would immediately refer patients to ophthalmologists. EMERALD found that graders were excellent at detecting diabetic macular oedema, and this could give ophthalmologists time to see other patients. Graders were not quite as good at detecting active proliferative diabetic retinopathy. However, considering that patients had already had treatment, this may still be safe. Patients participating in focus group discussions mentioned that they would prefer to see ophthalmologists, so they could ask questions about their eye condition. If this was not possible, they would like to have immediate results from graders and still see the ophthalmologist from time to time.

Screening for diabetic retinopathy: new perspectives and challenges.

Although the prevalence of all stages of diabetic retinopathy has been declining since 1980 in populations with improved diabetes control, the crude prevalence of visual impairment and blindness caused by diabetic retinopathy worldwide increased between 1990 and 2015, largely because of the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Screening for diabetic retinopathy is essential to detect referable cases that need timely full ophthalmic examination and treatment to avoid permanent visual loss. In the past few years, personalised screening intervals that take into account several risk factors have been proposed, with good cost-effectiveness ratios. However, resources for nationwide screening programmes are scarce in many countries. New technologies, such as scanning confocal ophthalmology with ultrawide field imaging and handheld mobile devices, teleophthalmology for remote grading, and artificial intelligence for automated detection and classification of diabetic retinopathy, are changing screening strategies and improving cost-effectiveness. Additionally, emerging evidence suggests that retinal imaging could be useful for identifying individuals at risk of cardiovascular disease or cognitive impairment, which could expand the role of diabetic retinopathy screening beyond the prevention of sight-threatening disease.

The Usefulness of Serum Biomarkers in the Early Stages of Diabetic Retinopathy: Results of the EUROCONDOR Clinical Trial.

The main aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of serum biomarkers to predict the worsening of retinal neurodysfunction in subjects with type 2 diabetes. For this purpose, we measured selected molecules (N-epsilon-carboxy methyl lysine (CML), laminin P1 (Lam-P1), and asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA)) in the serum of 341 participants of the EUROCONDOR study at baseline, 24, and 48 weeks. Retinal neurodysfunction was assessed by measuring implicit time (IT) using multifocal electroretinography, and structural changes were examined by spectral domain-optical coherence tomography. The values of IT at baseline were directly correlated with baseline serum concentrations of CML (r = 0.135, p = 0.013). Furthermore, in the placebo group, increase in CML concentration throughout follow-up correlated with the IT (r = 0.20; p = 0.03). Baseline serum levels of CML also correlated with macular retinal thickness (RT) (r = 0.231; p < 0.001). Baseline Lam-P1 levels correlated with the increase of the RT at the end of follow-up in the placebo group (r = 0.22; p = 0.016). We provide evidence that CML may be a biomarker of both retinal neurodysfunction and RT, whereas Lam-P1 was associated with RT only. Therefore, circulating levels of these molecules could provide a complementary tool for monitoring the early changes of diabetic retinopathy (DR).

Effectiveness of Multimodal imaging for the Evaluation of Retinal oedema And new vesseLs in Diabetic retinopathy (EMERALD).

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) are the major causes of sight loss in people with diabetes. Due to the increased prevalence of diabetes, the workload related to these complications is increasing making it difficult for Hospital Eye Services (HSE) to meet demands. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Effectiveness of Multimodal imaging for the Evaluation of Retinal oedema And new vesseLs in Diabetic retinopathy (EMERALD) is a prospective, case-referent, cross-sectional diagnostic study. It aims at determining the diagnostic performance, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of a new form of surveillance for people with stable DMO and/or PDR, which entails multimodal imaging and image review by an ophthalmic grader, using the current standard of care (evaluation of patients in clinic by an ophthalmologist) as the reference standard. If safe, cost-effective and acceptable, this pathway could help HES by freeing ophthalmologist time. The primary outcome of EMERALD is sensitivity of the new surveillance pathway in detecting active DMO/PDR. Secondary outcomes include specificity, agreement between new and the standard care pathway, positive and negative likelihood ratios, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, proportion of patients requiring subsequent full clinical assessment, unable to undergo imaging, with inadequate quality images or indeterminate findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained for this study from the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (reference 17/NI/0124). Study results will be published as a Health Technology Assessment monograph, in peer-reviewed national and international journals and presented at national/international conferences and to patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03490318 and ISRCTN:10856638.

Effects of Topically Administered Neuroprotective Drugs in Early Stages of Diabetic Retinopathy: Results of the EUROCONDOR Clinical Trial.

The primary objective of this study was to assess whether the topical administration of two neuroprotective drugs (brimonidine and somatostatin) could prevent or arrest retinal neurodysfunction in patients with type 2 diabetes. For this purpose, adults aged between 45 and 75 years with a diabetes duration ≥5 years and an Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) level of ≤35 were randomly assigned to one of three arms: placebo, somatostatin, or brimonidine. The primary outcome was the change in implicit time (IT) assessed by multifocal electroretinography between baseline and at the end of follow-up (96 weeks). There were 449 eligible patients allocated to brimonidine (n = 152), somatostatin (n = 145), or placebo (n = 152). When the primary end point was evaluated in the whole population, we did not find any neuroprotective effect of brimonidine or somatostatin. However, in the subset of patients (34.7%) with preexisting retinal neurodysfunction, IT worsened in the placebo group (P < 0.001) but remained unchanged in the brimonidine and somatostatin groups. In conclusion, the topical administration of the selected neuroprotective agents appears useful in preventing the worsening of preexisting retinal neurodysfunction. This finding points to screening retinal neurodysfunction as a critical issue to identify a subset of patients in whom neuroprotective treatment might be of benefit.

Functional and Structural Findings of Neurodegeneration in Early Stages of Diabetic Retinopathy: Cross-sectional Analyses of Baseline Data of the EUROCONDOR Project.

This cross-sectional study evaluated the relationship between 1) functional and structural measurements of neurodegeneration in the initial stages of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and 2) the presence of neurodegeneration and early microvascular impairment. We analyzed baseline data of 449 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the European Consortium for the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy (EUROCONDOR) study (NCT01726075). Functional studies by multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) evaluated neurodysfunction, and structural measurements using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) evaluated neurodegeneration. The mfERG P1 amplitude was more sensitive than the P1 implicit time and was lower in patients with Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) level 20-35 than in patients with ETDRS level <20 (P = 0.005). In 58% of patients, mfERG abnormalities were present in the absence of visible retinopathy. Correspondence between SD-OCT thinning and mfERG abnormalities was shown in 67% of the eyes with ETDRS <20 and in 83% of the eyes with ETDRS level 20-35. Notably, 32% of patients with ETDRS 20-35 presented no abnormalities in mfERG or SD-OCT. We conclude that there is a link between mfERG and SD-OCT measurements that increases with the presence of microvascular impairment. However, a significant proportion of patients in our particular study population (ETDRS ≤35) had normal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness and normal mfERG findings. We raise the hypothesis that neurodegeneration may play a role in the pathogenesis of DR in many but not in all patients with type 2 diabetes.

The influence of age, duration of diabetes, cataract, and pupil size on image quality in digital photographic retinal screening.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of age, duration of diabetes, cataract, and pupil size on the image quality in digital photographic screening. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Randomized groups of 3,650 patients had one-field, non-mydriatic, 45 degrees digital retinal imaging photography before mydriatic two-field photography. A total of 1,549 patients were then examined by an experienced ophthalmologist. Outcome measures were ungradable image rates, age, duration of diabetes, detection of referable diabetic retinopathy, presence of early or obvious central cataract, pupil diameter, and iris color. RESULTS: The ungradable image rate for non-mydriatic photography was 19.7% (95% CI 18.4-21.0) and for mydriatic photography was 3.7% (3.1-4.3). The odds of having one eye ungradable increased by 2.6% (1.6-3.7) for each extra year since diagnosis for nonmydriatic, by 4.1% (2.7-5.7) for mydriatic photography irrespective of age, by 5.8% (5.0-6.7) for non-mydriatic, and by 8.4% (6.5-10.4) for mydriatic photography for every extra year of age, irrespective of years since diagnosis. Obvious central cataract was present in 57% of ungradable mydriatic photographs, early cataract in 21%, no cataract in 9%, and 13% had other pathologies. The pupil diameter in the ungradable eyes showed a significant trend (P < 0.001) in the three groups (obvious cataract 4.434, early cataract 3.379, and no cataract 2.750). CONCLUSIONS: The strongest predictor of ungradable image rates, both for non-mydriatic and mydriatic digital photography, is the age of the person with diabetes. The most common cause of ungradable images was obvious central cataract.

Development of a cost-effectiveness model for optimisation of the screening interval in diabetic retinopathy screening.

BACKGROUND: The English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme was established in 2003. Eligible people are invited annually for digital retinal photography screening. Those found to have potentially sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) are referred to surveillance clinics or to Hospital Eye Services. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether personalised screening intervals are cost-effective. DESIGN: Risk factors were identified in Gloucestershire, UK using survival modelling. A probabilistic decision hidden (unobserved) Markov model with a misgrading matrix was developed. This informed estimation of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in patients without STDR. Two personalised risk stratification models were employed: two screening episodes (SEs) (low, medium or high risk) or one SE with clinical information (low, medium-low, medium-high or high risk). The risk factor models were validated in other populations. SETTING: Gloucestershire, Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia (all UK). PARTICIPANTS: People with diabetes in Gloucestershire with risk stratification model validation using data from Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Personalised risk-based algorithm for screening interval; cost-effectiveness of different screening intervals. RESULTS: Data were obtained in Gloucestershire from 12,790 people with diabetes with known risk factors to derive the risk estimation models, from 15,877 people to inform the uptake of screening and from 17,043 people to inform the health-care resource-usage costs. Two stratification models were developed: one using only results from previous screening events and one using previous screening and some commonly available GP data. Both models were capable of differentiating groups at low and high risk of development of STDR. The rate of progression to STDR was 5 per 1000 person-years (PYs) in the lowest decile of risk and 75 per 1000 PYs in the highest decile. In the absence of personalised risk stratification, the most cost-effective screening interval was to screen all patients every 3 years, with a 46% probability of this being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Using either risk stratification models, screening patients at low risk every 5 years was the most cost-effective option, with a probability of 99-100% at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. For the medium-risk groups screening every 3 years had a probability of 43-48% while screening high-risk groups every 2 years was cost-effective with a probability of 55-59%. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that annual screening of all patients for STDR was not cost-effective. Screening this entire cohort every 3 years was most likely to be cost-effective. When personalised intervals are applied, screening those in our low-risk groups every 5 years was found to be cost-effective. Screening high-risk groups every 2 years further improved the cost-effectiveness of the programme. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimated incremental costs and in the incremental QALYs, particularly with regard to implications of an increasing proportion of maculopathy cases receiving intravitreal injection rather than laser treatment. Future work should focus on improving the understanding of risk, validating in further populations and investigating quality issues in imaging and assessment including the potential for automated image grading. STUDY REGISTRATION: Integrated Research Application System project number 118959. FUNDING DETAILS: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Risks of progression of retinopathy and vision loss related to tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus: UKPDS 69.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between tight blood pressure (BP) control and the different aspects of diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). SETTING: Nineteen hospital-based clinics in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. DESIGN: Outcome of retinopathy status assessed by 4-field retinal photography related to allocation within a randomized controlled trial comparing a tight BP control policy aiming for a BP less than 150/85 mm Hg with a less tight BP control policy aiming for a BP less than 180/105 mm Hg. SUBJECTS: One thousand one hundred forty-eight hypertensive patients with type 2 DM were studied. These patients had type 2 DM for a mean duration of 2.6 years at the inception of the Hypertension in Diabetes Study, had a mean age of 56 years; and had a mean BP of 160/94 mm Hg. Seven hundred fifty-eight patients were allocated to a tight BP control policy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or beta-blockers as the main therapy; 390 were allocated to a less tight BP control policy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Deterioration of retinopathy (>/=2-step change on a modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] final scale), together with end points (photocoagulation, vitreous hemorrhage, and cataract extraction) and analysis of specific lesions (microaneurysms, hard exudates, and cotton-wool spots). Visual acuity was assessed at 3-year intervals using ETDRS logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution charts. Blindness was monitored as an end point with the criterion of Snellen chart assessment at 6/60 or worse. RESULTS: By 4.5 years after randomization, there was a highly significant difference in microaneurysm count with 23.3% in the tight BP control group and 33.5% in the less tight BP control group having 5 or more microaneurysms (relative risk [RR], 0.70; P = .003). The effect continued to 7.5 years (RR, 0.66; P<.001). Hard exudates increased from a prevalence of 11.2% to 18.3% at 7.5 years after randomization with fewer lesions found in the tight BP control group (RR, 0.53; P<.001). Cotton-wool spots increased in both groups but less so in the tight BP control group which had fewer cotton-wool spots at 7.5 years (RR, 0.53; P<.001). A 2-step or more deterioration on the ETDRS scale was significantly different at 4.5 years with fewer people in the tight BP control group progressing 2 steps or more (RR, 0.75; P = .02). Patients allocated to tight BP control were less likely to undergo photocoagulation (RR, 0.65; P = .03). This difference was driven by a difference in photocoagulation due to maculopathy (RR, 0.58; P = .02). The cumulative incidence of the end point of blindness (Snellen visual acuity, >/=6/60) in 1 eye was 18/758 for the tight BP control group compared with 12/390 for less tight BP control group. These equate to absolute risks of 3.1 to 4.1 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (P = .046; RR, 0.76; 99% confidence interval, 0.29-1.99). There was no detectable difference in outcome between the 2 randomized therapies of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and beta-blockade. CONCLUSIONS: High BP is detrimental to each aspect of diabetic retinopathy; a tight BP control policy reduces the risk of clinical complications from diabetic eye disease.

Epidemiological issues in diabetic retinopathy.

There is currently an epidemic of diabetes in the world, principally type 2 diabetes that is linked to changing lifestyle, obesity, and increasing age of the population. Latest estimates from the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) forecasts a rise from 366 million people worldwide to 552 million by 2030. Type 1 diabetes is more common in the Northern hemisphere with the highest rates in Finland and there is evidence of a rise in some central European countries, particularly in the younger children under 5 years of age. Modifiable risk factors for progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) are blood glucose, blood pressure, serum lipids, and smoking. Nonmodifiable risk factors are duration, age, genetic predisposition, and ethnicity. Other risk factors are pregnancy, microaneurysm count in an eye, microaneurysm formation rate, and the presence of any DR in the second eye. DR, macular edema (ME), and proliferative DR (PDR) develop with increased duration of diabetes and the rates are dependent on the above risk factors. In one study of type 1 diabetes, the median individual risk for the development of early retinal changes was 9.1 years of diabetes duration. Another study reported the 25 year incidence of proliferative retinopathy among population-based cohort of type 1 patients with diabetes was 42.9%. In recent years, people with diabetes have lower rates of progression than historically to PDR and severe visual loss, which may reflect better control of glucose, blood pressure, and serum lipids, and earlier diagnosis.

A simple risk stratification for time to development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy.

OBJECTIVE: The American Diabetes Association and the English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Program recommend annual screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) with referral to ophthalmology clinics of patients with sight-threatening DR (STDR). Using only longitudinal data from retinal photographs in the population-based NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Program in Gloucestershire, we developed a simple means to estimate risk of STDR. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: From 2005, 14,554 patients with no DR or mild nonproliferative DR only at two consecutive annual digital photographic screenings were categorized by the presence of DR in neither, one, or both eyes at each screening and were followed for a further median 2.8 years. RESULTS: Of 7,246 with no DR at either screening, 120 progressed to STDR, equivalent to an annual rate of 0.7%. Of 1,778 with no DR in either eye at first screening and in one eye at second screening, 80 progressed to STDR, equivalent to an annual rate of 1.9% and to a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.8) compared with those with no DR. Of 1,159 with background DR in both eyes at both screenings, 299 progressed to STDR equivalent to an annual rate of 11% and an HR of 18.2 (14.7-22.5) compared with individuals with no DR. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the results from 2 consecutive years of photographic screening enables estimation of the risk of future development of STDR. In countries with systematic screening programs, these results could inform decisions about screening frequency.

The influence of background diabetic retinopathy in the second eye on rates of progression of diabetic retinopathy between 2005 and 2010.

PURPOSE: The Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Programme offers annual digital photographic screening for diabetic retinopathy to a countywide population of people with diabetes. This study was designed to investigate progression of diabetic retinopathy in this programme of the English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. METHODS: Mydriatic digital retinal photographs of people with diabetes screened on at least 2 occasions between 2005 and 2010 were graded and included in this study if the classification at first screening was no DR (R0), background DR in one (R1a) or both eyes (R1b). Times to detection of referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR) comprising maculopathy (M1), preproliferative (R2) or proliferative retinopathy (R3) were analysed using survival models. RESULTS: Data were available on 19 044 patients, 56% men, age at screening 66 (57-74) years (median, 25th, 75th centile). A total of 8.3% of those with R1a and 28.2% of those with R1b progressed to any RDR, hazard ratios 2.9 [2.5-3.3] and 11.3 [10.0-12.8]. Similarly 7.1% and 0.11% of those with R1a progressed to M1 and R3, hazard ratios 2.7 [2.3-3.2] and 1.6 [0.5-5.0], compared to 21.8% and 1.07% of those with R1b, hazard ratio 9.1 [7.8-10.4] and 15.0 [7.1-31.5]. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of progression is significantly higher for those with background DR in both eyes than those with background retinopathy in only one or in neither eye.

Screening for diabetic retinopathy: developing a standardized photographic protocol for St. John's Hospital.

The management of people with diabetes involves input from many healthcare professionals including doctors, nurses, podiatrists and dieticians. In February 1999 at the request of the Consultant Diabetologist a diabetic screening service was established at St. John's Hospital using digital retinal photography. A preliminary photographic protocol was put into place immediately. In order to establish if the protocol was suitable, or at the level of a national standard, the author carried out an extensive literature search. There proved to be a paucity of published information specifically related to guidelines for diabetic retinopathy screening, using a photographic method. The author therefore issued questionnaires to randomly selected medical photography and diabetic screening units throughout the United Kingdom. The research and results of this study has enabled the provision of an effective and efficient retinopathy screening service. Medical photographers are now recognized as part of the diabetic clinic 'team' that care for patients at St. John's Hospital.