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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.