Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Diabet Med ; 38(9): e14583, 2021 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33830513

RESUMO

AIMS: Systematic annual screening to detect sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) is established in the United Kingdom. We designed an observational cohort study to provide up-to-date data for policy makers and clinical researchers on incidence of key screening endpoints in people with diabetes attending one screening programme running for over 30 years. METHODS: All people with diabetes aged ≥12 years registered with general practices in the Liverpool health district were offered inclusion. Data sources comprised: primary care (demographics, systemic risk factors), Liverpool Diabetes Eye Screening Programme (retinopathy grading), Hospital Eye Services (slit lamp biomicroscopy assessment of screen positives). RESULTS: 133,366 screening episodes occurred in 28,384 people over 11 years. Overall incidences were: screen positive 6.7% (95% CI 6.5-6.8), screen positive for retinopathy 3.1% (3.0-3.1), unassessable images 2.6% (2.5-2.7), other significant eye diseases 1.0% (1.0-1.1). 1.6% (1.6-1.7) had sight-threatening retinopathy confirmed by slit lamp biomicroscopy. The annual incidence of screen positive and screen positive for retinopathy showed consistent declines from 8.8%-10.6% and 4.4%-4.6% in 2007/09 to 4.4%-6.8% and 2.3%-2.9% in 2013/17, respectively. Rates of STDR (true positive) were consistently below 2% after 2008/09. Screen positive rates were higher in first time attenders (9.9% [9.4-10.2] vs. 6.1% [6.0-6.2]) in part due to ungradeable images (4.1% vs. 2.3%) and other eye disease (2.4% vs. 0.8%). 4.5% (3.9-5.2) of previous non-attenders had sight-threatening retinopathy. Compared with people with type 2 diabetes, those with type 1 disease demonstrated higher rates of screen positive (11.9% vs. 6.0%) and STDR (6.4% vs. 1.2%). Overall prevalence of any retinopathy was 27.2% (27.0-27.4). CONCLUSIONS: In an established screening programme with a stable population screen, positive rates show a consistent fall over time to a low level. Of those who are screen positive, fewer than 50% are screen positive for diabetic retinopathy. Most are due to sight threatening maculopathy. The annual incidence of STDR is under 2% suggesting future work on redefining screen positive and supporting extended intervals for people at low risk. Higher rates of screen positive and STDR are seen in first time attenders. Those who have never attended for screening should be specifically targeted.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Retinopatia Diabética/epidemiologia , Previsões , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , População Urbana/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Retinopatia Diabética/etiologia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prevalência , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Reino Unido/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem
2.
Eye (Lond) ; 2024 Apr 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38653749

RESUMO

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To determine long-term outcomes of patients referred with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) from diabetic eye screening programmes (DESP) to tertiary care centres in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Retrospective multicentre study of patients referred from two DESPs in the UK over a 36-month period (2007-9) and followed-up for 10 years. Critical outcomes included severe vision loss (SVL) and the need for vitrectomy. Other outcomes assessed included moderate vision loss (MVL), and patient survival time. Univariate and multiple variable Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to analyse survival outcomes. RESULTS: 212 eyes of 150 patients were referred with a diagnosis of PDR. 109 eyes of 72 patients were confirmed to have active PDR and included in the study. 61% of patients had low-risk PDR, while 39% exhibited high-risk features in at least one eye. Eight (7.3%) eyes developed SVL and 16 (14.7%) MVL during follow up. Vitrectomy was required in 24% (95% CI: 15 to 31%) of all PDR eyes and was most commonly performed for vitreous haemorrhage (65%). The 10-year survival in all PDR patients was 76% (95% CI: 63 to 85%) with the mean time to death for all deceased patients being 5.4 ± 3.6 years. On multivariable analysis, only age was found to have a significant association with the survival of patients with PDR. CONCLUSIONS: During the 10 year follow up SVL was uncommon, but MVL occurred in almost one-fifth of the eyes. Approximately 1 in 4 eyes required vitrectomy, highlighting its significance in patient management.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA