Cancer incidence and mortality in 23 000 patients with type 1 diabetes in the UK: Long-term follow-up.

Type 2 diabetes is associated with raised risk of several cancers, but for type 1 diabetes risk data are fewer and inconsistent We assembled a cohort of 23 473 UK patients with insulin-treated diabetes diagnosed at ages <30, almost all of whom will have had type 1 diabetes, and for comparison 5058 diagnosed at ages 30 to 49, of whom we estimate two-thirds will have had type 2, and followed them for an average of 30 years for cancer incidence and mortality compared with general population rates. Patients aged <30 at diabetes diagnosis had significantly raised risks only for ovarian (standardised incidence ratio = 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.11; P < .01) and vulval (3.55; 1.94-5.96; P < .001) cancers, with greatest risk when diabetes was diagnosed at ages 10-14. Risks of cancer overall (0.89; 0.84-0.95; P < .001) and sites including lung and larynx were significantly diminished. Patients diagnosed with diabetes at ages 30 to 49 had significantly raised risks of liver (1.76;1.08-2.72) and kidney (1.46;1.03-2.00) cancers, and reduced risk of cancer overall (0.89; 0.84-0.95). The raised ovarian and vulval cancer risks in patients with type 1 diabetes, especially with diabetes diagnosed around pubertal ages, suggest possible susceptibility of these organs at puberty to metabolic disruption at diabetes onset. Reduced risk of cancer overall, particularly smoking and alcohol-related sites, might reflect adoption of a healthy lifestyle.

Type 1 diabetes incidence in Scotland between 2006 and 2019.

AIMS: To describe type 1 diabetes incidence in Scotland between 2006 and 2019. METHODS: Repeated annual cross-sectional studies of type 1 diabetes incidence were conducted. Incident cases were identified from the Scottish Care Information-Diabetes Collaboration (SCI-DC), a population-based register of people with diagnosed diabetes derived from primary and secondary care data. Mid-year population estimates for Scotland were used as the denominator to calculate annual incidence with stratification by age and sex. Joinpoint regression was used to investigate whether incidence changed during the study period. Age and sex-specific type 1 diabetes incidence over the whole time period was estimated by quintile of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), an area-based measure, in which Q1 and Q5 denote the most and least deprived fifths of the population, respectively, with quasi-Poisson regression used to compare incidence for Q5 compared to Q1. RESULTS: The median (IQR) age of the study population of 14,564 individuals with incident type 1 diabetes was 24.1 (12.3-42.4) years, 56% were men, 23% were in Q1 and 16% were in Q5. Incidence of T1DM was higher in men than women overall (at around 22 and 17 per 100,000, respectively) and in under 15 year olds (approximately 40 per 100,000 in both sexes) than other age groups and was similar across the study period in all strata. There was an inverse association between socio-economic status and type 1 diabetes incidence for 15-29, 30-49 and 50+ year olds [incidence rate ratio (IRR) for Q5 compared to Q1; IRR (95% CI) 0.52 (0.47-0.58), 0.68 (0.61-0.76) and 0.53(0.46-0.61), respectively] but not for under 15 year olds [1.02 (0.92-1.12)]. CONCLUSION: Incidence of type 1 diabetes varies by age, sex and socio-economic status and has remained approximately stable from 2006 to 2019 in Scotland.

Diabetic Macular Edema and Diode Subthreshold Micropulse Laser: A Randomized Double-Masked Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML), compared with standard laser (SL), for diabetic macular edema (DME) with central retinal thickness (CRT) < 400 µm. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomized, noninferiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with center-involved DME < 400 µm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in one/both eyes. METHODS: Randomization 1:1 to 577 nm SML or SL treatment. Retreatments were allowed. Rescue with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was permitted if 10 or more ETDRS letter loss occurred, CRT increased > 400 µm, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 24 months (noninferiority margin 5 ETDRS letters). Secondary outcomes were mean change from baseline to month 24 in binocular BCVA; CRT and mean deviation of Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; percentage meeting driving standards; EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), and Vision and Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) scores; cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained; adverse effects; and number of laser and rescue treatments. RESULTS: The study recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of SML-treated and 86% of SL-treated patients had primary outcome data. Mean ± standard deviation BCVA change from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 ± 8.20 letters and -0.45 ± 6.72 letters in the SML and SL groups, respectively. Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was deemed not only noninferior but also equivalent to SL therapy because the 95% confidence interval (CI; -3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 ETDRS letters). No statistically significant difference was found in binocular BCVA (0.32 ETDRS letters; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.64 ETDRS letters; P = 0.63); CRT (-0.64 µm; 95% CI, -14.25 to 12.98 µm; P = 0.93); mean deviation of the visual field (0.39 decibels (dB); 95% CI, -0.23 to 1.02 dB; P = 0.21); meeting driving standards (percentage point difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -25.3% to 28.5%; P = 0.91); adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-1.34; P = 0.11); rescue treatments (percentage point difference, -2.8%; 95% CI, -13.1% to 7.5%; P = 0.59); or EQ-5D, NEI-VFQ-25, or VisQoL scores. Number of laser treatments was higher in the SML group (0.48; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79; P = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no differences in costs or QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was equivalent to SL therapy, requiring slightly higher laser treatments.

Standard threshold laser versus subthreshold micropulse laser for adults with diabetic macular oedema: the DIAMONDS non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends macular laser to treat diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm on optical coherence tomography. The DIAMONDS (DIAbetic Macular Oedema aNd Diode Subthreshold micropulse laser) trial compared standard threshold macular laser with subthreshold micropulse laser to treat diabetic macular oedema suitable for macular laser. OBJECTIVES: Determining the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser compared with standard threshold macular laser to treat diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomised, non-inferiority, clinical trial. SETTING: Hospital eye services in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with diabetes and centre-involving diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm, and a visual acuity of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (Snellen equivalent > 20/320) in one/both eyes. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive 577 nm subthreshold micropulse laser or standard threshold macular laser (e.g. argon laser, frequency-doubled neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet 532 nm laser); laser treatments could be repeated as needed. Rescue therapy with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was allowed if a loss of ≥ 10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters between visits occurred and/or central retinal subfield thickness increased to > 400 µm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity in the study eye at 24 months (non-inferiority margin 5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters). Secondary outcomes included the mean change from baseline to 24 months in the following: binocular best-corrected visual acuity; central retinal subfield thickness; the mean deviation of the Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; the percentage of people meeting driving standards; and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire - 25 and Vision and Quality of Life Index scores. Other secondary outcomes were the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained, adverse effects, number of laser treatments and additional rescue treatments. RESULTS: The DIAMONDS trial recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of participants in the subthreshold micropulse laser group and 86% of participants in the standard threshold macular laser group had primary outcome data. Groups were balanced regarding baseline characteristics. Mean best-corrected visual acuity change in the study eye from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 letters (standard deviation 8.20 letters) in the subthreshold micropulse laser group and -0.45 letters (standard deviation 6.72 letters) in the standard threshold macular laser group. Subthreshold micropulse laser was deemed to be not only non-inferior but also equivalent to standard threshold macular laser as the 95% confidence interval (-3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both the upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in any of the secondary outcomes investigated with the exception of the number of laser treatments performed, which was slightly higher in the subthreshold micropulse laser group (mean difference 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79; p = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no significant difference in the cost per quality-adjusted life-years between groups. FUTURE WORK: A trial in people with ≥ 400 µm diabetic macular oedema comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy alone with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and macular laser applied at the time when central retinal subfield thickness has decreased to < 400 µm following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections would be of value because it could reduce the number of injections and, subsequently, costs and risks and inconvenience to patients. LIMITATIONS: The majority of participants enrolled had poorly controlled diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold micropulse laser was equivalent to standard threshold macular laser but required a slightly higher number of laser treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as EudraCT 2015-001940-12, ISRCTN17742985 and NCT03690050. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The retina is a layer at the back of the eye. Its centre is called the macula and is responsible for central vision. Some people with diabetes develop diabetic macular oedema. In diabetic macular oedema fluid leaks from retinal blood vessels and builds up at the macula, resulting in sight loss. Diabetic macular oedema can be mild or severe; this can be determined measuring the thickness of the macula, which is measured in micrometres (µm). One micrometre is one thousandth of a millimetre. In mild diabetic macular oedema, the thickness of the macula increases, but is less than 400 µm. Patients with mild diabetic macular oedema can be treated with a laser and there are two laser types. The standard threshold macular laser has been available for many years. It clears the diabetic macular oedema but produces a 'burn' in the retina. The subthreshold micropulse laser is newer. It does not produce a burn but also clears the diabetic macular oedema. The lack of a burn, however, has led to doubts about whether or not this laser works as well as the standard threshold macular laser because 'no burn' was taken to mean 'less benefit'. These doubts led to our establishing the DIAMONDS (DIAbetic Macular Oedema aNd Diode Subthreshold micropulse laser) trial, which compared these two lasers for people with mild diabetic macular oedema. A total of 266 people suitable for either laser joined the study at 16 NHS hospitals across the UK; 133 received standard threshold macular laser and 133 received subthreshold micropulse laser. The choice of laser was determined by chance. The DIAMONDS trial found that the subthreshold micropulse laser was as good as the standard threshold macular laser (i.e. 'clinically equivalent') in terms of improving people's vision, reducing macula thickness, allowing people to meet driving standards and maintaining their quality of life, both in general terms and for vision in particular. There was a small increase (less than one session on average per person) in the number of laser treatment sessions needed with subthreshold micropulse laser. The costs of both laser treatments were about the same.

REducing Colonoscopies in patients without significant bowEl DiseasE: the RECEDE Study - protocol for a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

INTRODUCTION: Demand for colonoscopies and CT colonography (CTC) is exceeding capacity in National Health Service Trusts. In many patients colonoscopies and CTCs show no significant bowel disease (SBD). Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) is being introduced to prioritise patients for colonoscopies but is insufficient to identify non-SBD patients meaning colonoscopy and CTC demand remains high. The REducing Colonoscopies in patients without significant bowEl DiseasE (RECEDE) study aims to test urine volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis alongside FIT to improve detection of SBD and to reduce the number of colonoscopies and CTCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluating whether stool FIT plus urine VOC compared with stool FIT alone improves detection of SBD in patients referred for colonoscopy or CTC due to persistent lower gastrointestinal symptoms. To ensure SBD is not missed, the dual test requires a high sensitivity, set at 97% with 95% CI width of 5%. Our assumption is that to achieve this sensitivity requires 200 participants with SBD. Further assuming 19% of all participants will have SBD and 55% of all participants will return both stool and urine samples we will recruit 1915 participants. The thresholds for FIT and VOC results diagnosing SBD have been pre-set. If either FIT or VOC exceeds the respective threshold, the participant will be classed as having suspected SBD. As an exploratory analysis we will be testing different thresholds. The reference comparator will be a complete colonoscopy or CTC. Secondary outcomes will look at optimising the FIT and VOC thresholds for SBD detection. An economic evaluation, using a denovo decision analytic model, will be carried out determine the costs, benefits and overall cost-effectiveness of FIT +VOC vs FIT followed by colonoscopy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained by Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (20/NW/0346). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RECEDE is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04516785 & ISRCTN14982373. This protocol was written and published before results of the trial were available.

Surveillance of people with previously successfully treated diabetic macular oedema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy by trained ophthalmic graders: cost analysis from the EMERALD study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Surveillance of people with previously successfully treated diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) adds pressure on ophthalmology services. This study evaluated a new surveillance pathway entailing multimodal imaging reviewed by trained ophthalmic graders and compared it with the current standard care (face-to-face evaluation by an ophthalmologist). METHODS: Cost analysis of the new ophthalmic grader pathway, compared with the standard of care, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, based on evidence from the Effectiveness of Multimodal imaging for the Evaluation of Retinal oedema And new vesseLs in Diabetic retinopathy study. Resource use data were prospectively obtained including times to undertake each procedure. Effectiveness was assessed in terms of sensitivity and specificity of referral decisions in the grader pathway. Costs (SDs) were analysed per 100 patients separately for DMO and PDR at 2018/2019 costs. RESULTS: For DMO, where sensitivity was very high (97%), the cost difference (savings) for the grader's pathway would be £1390 per 100 patients. For PDR, the cost would be reduced by £461 for seven-field Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) images and by £1889 for ultrawide field images, per 100 patients. Ultrawide images required less time to be obtained and read than seven-field ETDRS. The real savings would be in ophthalmologist time, which could be then redirected to the evaluation of people at high risk of visual loss. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance of people with previously successfully treated DMO and PDR by trained ophthalmic graders can achieve satisfactory results and release ophthalmologist time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03490318, ISRCTN10856638.

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.

Laser peripheral iridoplasty for chronic angle closure.

BACKGROUND: In at least a third of primary angle closure cases, appositional angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy, and further intervention may be considered. Laser peripheral iridoplasty (LPIp) can be used in treating chronic angle closure when angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy. Previous reviews have found insufficient data to determine its clinical effectiveness, compared to other interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2012. It examines all studies to date to establish whether LPIp shows any effectiveness over other available treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of laser peripheral iridoplasty in the treatment of people with chronic angle closure, when compared to laser peripheral iridotomy, medical therapy or no further treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched various electronic databases. The date of the search was 20 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the use of LPIp in cases of suspected primary angle closure (PACS), confirmed primary angle closure (PAC), or primary chronic angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). We applied no restrictions with respect to gender, age or ethnicity of participants. Trials evaluating LPIp for acute attacks of angle closure were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias using Cochrane's 'risk of bias' tool. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs involving 252 participants (276 eyes). In total, three different methods of intervention were used and 15 outcomes reported, with different time points. We used narrative synthesis to describe the majority of the findings, as meta-analysis was only possible for a limited number of outcomes due to the variation in study design and outcomes assessed. Study Characteristics Participants were adults recruited from outpatient settings in the UK, Singapore, China and Korea with either PACS, PAC or PACG. All studies compared argon LPIp (as either a primary or secondary procedure) to an alternative intervention or no further treatment. Three studies were of parallel group design, and one within-person, randomised by eye. All studies showed elements of high risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention assessed, a lack of masking of both participants and assessors was noted in all trials. Findings Laser peripheral iridoplasty with iridotomy versus iridotomy alone as a primary procedure Two RCTs assessed the use of argon LPIp as a primary procedure with peripheral iridotomy, compared with peripheral iridotomy alone. However, neither study reported data for the primary outcome, disease progression. Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on: final mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at 3 months and 12 months (mean difference (MD) 0.39 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to 1.85; I2 = 38%; 2 studies, 174 participants; low-certainty evidence); further surgical or laser intervention at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.21; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence); or mean number of additional medications required at 12 months (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.54; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were assessed at 3 to 12 months (2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and found to be mild and uncommon, with comparable levels between groups. The only severe complication encountered was one case of malignant glaucoma in one study's argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. In the other study, investigators found that argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on final mean anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) measurements, including anterior chamber depth (MD 0.00 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; 24 participants, 48 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). Laser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus no treatment One RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with no further treatment in 22 participants over three months. Disease progression, additional medications required, complications, further surgical or laser intervention, and quality of life outcomes were not assessed. There was only very low-certainty evidence regarding final maximum IOP value (MD -1.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.11 to -0.51; very low-certainty evidence), with no evidence of effect on final minimum IOP values (MD -0.31 mmHg, 95% CI -1.93 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group. Laser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus medication One RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with travoprost 0.004% in 80 participants over 12 months. The primary outcome of disease progression was reported for this method: argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on mean final cup/disk ratio (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; low-certainty evidence). Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect for: mean change in IOP (MD -1.20 mmHg, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.47; low-certainty evidence) or mean number of additional medications (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Further surgical intervention was required by one participant in the intervention group alone, with none in the control group  (low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported, with mild complications consisting of two cases of 'post-laser IOP spike' in the argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group. Adverse events Availability of data were limited for adverse effects. Similar rates were observed in control and intervention groups, where reported. Serious adverse events were rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: After reviewing the outcomes of four RCTs, argon LPIp as an intervention may be no more clinically effective than comparators in the management of people with chronic angle closure. Despite a potential positive impact on anterior chamber morphology, its use in clinical practice in treating people with chronic angle closure is not supported by the results of trials published to date. Given these results, further research into LPIp is unlikely to be worthwhile.

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.

Visual cycle modulators versus placebo or observation for the prevention and treatment of geographic atrophy due to age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a highly prevalent condition in an ever-increasing elderly population. Although insidious in the early stages, advanced AMD (neovascular and atrophic forms) can cause significant visual disability and economic burden on health systems worldwide. The most common form, geographic atrophy, has no effective treatment to date, whereas neovascular AMD can be treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections. Geographic atrophy has a slow disease progression and patients tend to have preserved central vision until the final stages. This tendency, coupled with the use of modern imaging modalities, provides a large window of opportunity to intervene with validated methods to assess treatment efficacy. As geographic atrophy is an increasingly common condition with no effective intervention, many treatments are under investigation, one of which is visual cycle modulators. These medications have been shown to reduce lipofuscin accumulation in pre-clinical studies that have led to several clinical trials, reviewed herein. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of visual cycle modulators for the prevention and treatment of geographic atrophy secondary to AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; Web of Science Core Collection; Scopus; Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) website; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP to 11 January 2020 with no language restrictions. We also searched using the reference lists of reviews and existing studies and the Cited Reference Search function in Web of Science to identify further relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised clinical studies (if available) that compared visual cycle modulators to placebo or no treatment (observation) in people diagnosed with AMD (early, intermediate or geographic atrophy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. Both authors entered data into RevMan 5. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs from the USA; one of these had clinical sites in Germany. Two studies compared emixustat to placebo while the other compared fenretinide to placebo. All assigned one study eye per participant and, combined, have a total of 821 participants with a majority white ethnicity (97.6%). All participants were diagnosed with geographic atrophy due to AMD based on validated imaging modalities. All three studies have high risk of attrition bias mainly due to ocular adverse effects of emixustat and fenretinide. We considered only one study to be adequately conducted and reported with high risk of bias in only one domain (attrition bias). We considered the other two studies to be poorly reported and to have high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias. People with geographic atrophy treated with emixustat may not experience a clinically important change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and 24 months compared to people treated with placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.9 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.34 to 6.14, low-certainty evidence). Emixustat may also result in little or no difference in loss of 15 ETDRS letters or more of BCVA compared with placebo at 24 months (16.4% versus 18%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.4, low-certainty evidence). In terms of disease progression, emixustat may result in little or no difference in the annual growth rate of geographic atrophy compared with placebo (mean difference MD 0.09 mm2/year (95% CI -0.26 to 0.44, low-certainty evidence). All three studies reported adverse events of both drugs (emixustat: moderate-certainty evidence; fenretinide: low-certainty evidence). The main adverse events were ocular in nature and associated with the mechanism of action of the drugs. Delayed dark adaptation (emixustat: 54.5%; fenretinide: 39.3%) and chromatopsia (emixustat: 22.6%; fenretinide: 25.2%) were the most common adverse events reported, and were the most prevalent reasons for study dropout in emixustat trials. These effects were dose-dependent and resolved after drug cessation. No specific systemic adverse events were considered related to emixustat; only pruritus and rash were considered to be due to fenretinide. One emixustat study reported six deaths, none deemed related to the drug. None of the included RCTs reported the other pre-specified outcomes, including proportion of participants losing 10 letters or more, and mean change in macular sensitivity. We planned to investigate progression to advanced AMD (geographic atrophy or neovascular AMD) in prevention studies, including participants with early or intermediate AMD, but we identified no such studies. Two of the included studies reported an additional outcome - incidence of choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) - that was not in our published protocol. CNV onset may be reduced in those treated with emixustat but the evidence was uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.65, low-certainty evidence), or fenretinide (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.98, low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. A dose-dependent relationship was observed with emixustat. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support the use of visual cycle modulators (emixustat and fenretinide) for the treatment of established geographic atrophy due to AMD. The possible reduction in the incidence of CNV observed with fenretinide, and to a lesser extent, emixustat, requires formal assessment in focused studies.

Treatment effects may remain the same even when trial participants differed from the target population.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been criticized for lacking external validity. We assessed whether a trial in people with type I diabetes mellitus mirrored the wider population and applied sample-weighting methods to assess the impact of differences on our trial's findings. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Relative Effectiveness of Pumps over MDI and Structured Education trial was nested within a large UK cohort capturing demographic, clinical, and quality of life data for people with type I diabetes mellitus undergoing structured diabetes-specific education. We first assessed whether our RCT participants were comparable with this cohort using propensity score modeling. After this, we reweighted the trial population to better match the wider cohort and re-estimated the treatment effect. RESULTS: Trial participants differed from the cohort in regard to sex, weight, HbA1c, and also quality of life and satisfaction with current treatment. Nevertheless, the treatment effects derived from alternative model weightings were similar to that of the original RCT. CONCLUSION: Our RCT participants differed in composition to the wider population, but the original findings were unaffected by sampling adjustments. We encourage investigators take steps to address criticisms of generalizability but doing so is problematic; external data, even if available, may contain limited information and analyses can be susceptible to model misspecification.

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.

Meniscal allograft transplantation after meniscectomy: clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) after meniscal injury and subsequent meniscectomy. METHODS: Systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: There is considerable evidence from observational studies, of improvement in symptoms after meniscal allograft transplantation, but we found only one small pilot trial with a randomised comparison with a control group that received non-surgical care. MAT has not yet been proven to be chondroprotective. Cost-effectiveness analysis is not possible due to a lack of data on the effectiveness of MAT compared to non-surgical care. CONCLUSION: The benefits of MAT include symptomatic relief and restoration of at least some previous activities, which will be reflected in utility values and hence in quality-adjusted life years, and in the longer term, prevention or delay of osteoarthritis, and avoidance or postponement of some knee replacements, with resulting savings. It is likely to be cost-effective, but this cannot be proven on the basis of present evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Autograft or allograft for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of allografts versus autografts in the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments. METHODS: Systematic review of comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Both autograft and allograft reconstruction are highly effective. Recent studies show little difference in failure rates between autografts and allografts (about 6% and 7%, respectively). In cost-effectiveness analysis, the price differential is the main factor, making autografts the first choice. However, there will be situations, particularly in revision ACL reconstruction, where an allograft may be preferred, or may be the only reasonable option available. CONCLUSION: In ACL reconstruction, clinical results with autografts are as good as or slightly better than with allografts. Allografts cost more, indicating that autografts are more cost-effective and should usually be first choice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Allografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

PURPOSE: To review the relative cost-effectiveness of allografts and autografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. METHODS: Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The available evidence does not show any significant difference in clinical effectiveness between autografts and allografts. Given that, only a cost analysis is provided, which shows that allografts are more costly. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of any benefit of allografts over autografts, autografts should be preferred on cost grounds, if available. However, there may be situations where an allograft is indicated, for example, in multiple ligament reconstructions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

A brief introduction to health economics.

To convince policy-makers or funders of health care of the value of orthopaedic interventions, we need to consider value for money (cost-effectiveness), as well as clinical effectiveness. This article provides an introduction to health economics to set the scene for papers on the use of allografts in the knee.

Diabetic macular oedema and diode subthreshold micropulse laser (DIAMONDS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, macular laser is the treatment of choice for people with diabetic macular oedema with central retinal subfield thickness (CST) < 400 µm, as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. It remains unclear whether subthreshold micropulse laser is superior and should replace standard threshold laser for the treatment of eligible patients. METHODS: DIAMONDS is a pragmatic, multicentre, allocation-concealed, randomised, equivalence, double-masked clinical trial that aims to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser compared with standard threshold laser, for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema with CST < 400 µm. The primary outcome is the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to month 24 post treatment. Secondary outcomes (at 24 months) include change in binocular best corrected visual acuity; CST; mean deviation of the Humphrey 10-2 visual field; change in percentage of people meeting driving standards; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 and VisQoL scores; incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained; side effects; number of laser treatments and use of additional therapies. The primary statistical analysis will be per protocol rather than intention-to-treat analysis because the latter increases type I error in non-inferiority or equivalence trials. The difference between lasers for change in best-corrected visual acuity (using 95% CI) will be compared to the permitted maximum difference of five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. Linear and logistic regression models will be used to compare outcomes between treatment groups. A Markov-model-based cost-utility analysis will extend beyond the trial period to estimate longer-term cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser, when compared with standard threshold laser, for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema, the main cause of sight loss in people with diabetes mellitus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN17742985 . Registered on 19 May 2017 (retrospectively registered).

The cost-effectiveness of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee.

PURPOSE: Osteochondral allografts (OCA) consist of a layer of hyaline cartilage and a layer of underlying bone. They are used to repair combined defects of articular cartilage and bone. Such defects often occur in people far too young to have knee arthroplasty, for whom the main alternative to OCA is conservative symptomatic care, which will not prevent development of osteoarthritis. The aim of this report was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. METHODS: Systematic review of evidence on clinical effectiveness and economic modelling. RESULTS: The evidence on osteochondral allograft transplantation comes from observational studies, but often based on good quality prospective registries of all patients having such surgery. Without controlled trials, it was necessary to use historical cohorts to assess the effect of osteochondral grafts. There is good evidence that OCA are clinically effective with a high graft survival rate over 20 years. If an OCA graft fails, there is some evidence that revision with a second OCA is also effective, though less so than primary OCA. Economic modelling showed that osteochondral allograft transplantation was highly cost-effective, with costs per quality adjusted life year much lower than many other treatments considered cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Osteochondral allograft transplantation appears highly cost-effective though the cost per quality adjusted life year varies according to the widely varying costs of allografts. Based on one small study, revision OCA also appears very cost-effective, but more evidence is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.