The effects of medical management on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in persons with type 2 diabetes: the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Eye Study.

PURPOSE: To report additional ocular outcomes of intensive treatment of hyperglycemia, blood pressure, and dyslipidemia in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study. DESIGN: Double 2×2 factorial, multicenter, randomized clinical trials in people with type 2 diabetes who had cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. In the glycemia trial, targets of intensive and standard treatment were: hemoglobin A1c <6.0% and 7.0% to 7.9%, respectively, and in the blood pressure trial: systolic blood pressures of <120 and <140 mmHg, respectively. The dyslipidemia trial compared fenofibrate plus simvastatin with placebo plus simvastatin. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 3472 ACCORD Eye Study participants enrolled, 2856 had 4-year data (85% of survivors). METHODS: Eye examinations and fundus photographs were taken at baseline and year 4. Photographs were graded centrally for retinopathy severity and macular edema using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) methods. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three or more steps of progression on the ETDRS person scale or treatment of retinopathy with photocoagulation or vitrectomy. RESULTS: As previously reported, there were significant reductions in the primary outcome in the glycemia and dyslipidemia trials, but no significant effect in the blood pressure trial. Results were similar for retinopathy progression by 1, 2, and 4 or more steps on the person scale and for ≥ 2 steps on the eye scale. In the subgroup of patients with mild retinopathy at baseline, effect estimates were large (odds ratios, ∼0.30; P < 0.001), but did not reach nominal significance for participants with no retinopathy or for those with moderate to severe retinopathy at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Slowing of progression of retinopathy by intensive treatment of glycemia was observed in ACCORD participants, whose average age and diabetes duration were 62 and 10 years, respectively, and who had cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. The effect seemed stronger in patients with mild retinopathy. Similar slowing of progression was observed in patients treated with fenofibrate, with no effect observed with intensive blood pressure treatment. This is the second study to confirm the benefits of fenofibrate in reducing diabetic retinopathy progression, and fenofibrate should be considered for treatment of diabetic retinopathy.

Comparison of standardized clinical classification with fundus photograph grading for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema severity.

PURPOSE: To compare evaluation by clinical examination with image grading at a reading center for the classification of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) and Family Investigations of Nephropathy in Diabetes (FIND) had similar methods of clinical and fundus photograph evaluation. For analysis purposes, the photographic grading scales were condensed to correspond to the clinical scales, and agreement between clinicians and reading center classification were compared. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred and two eyes of ACCORD participants and 3,638 eyes of FIND participants were analyzed for agreement (percent, kappa) on diabetic retinopathy on a 5-level scale. Exact agreement between clinicians and reading center on diabetic retinopathy severity category was 69% in ACCORD and 74% in FIND (kappa 0.42 and 0.65). Sensitivities of the clinical grading to identify the presence of mild nonproliferative retinopathy or worse were 0.53 in ACCORD and 0.84 in FIND. Specificities were 0.97 and 0.96, respectively. Diabetic macular edema agreement in 6,649 eyes of ACCORD participants and 3,366 eyes of FIND participants was similar (kappa 0.35 and 0.41). Sensitivities of the clinical grading to identify diabetic macular edema were 0.44 and 0.53 and specificities were 0.99 and 0.94, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results support the use of clinical information for defining broad severity categories but not for documenting small-to-moderate changes in diabetic retinopathy over time.

Lack of association between thiazolidinediones and macular edema in type 2 diabetes: the ACCORD eye substudy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-sectional association of thiazolidinediones with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: The cross-sectional association of DME and visual acuity with thiazolidinediones was examined by means of baseline fundus photographs and visual acuity measurements from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Visual acuity was assessed in 9690 participants in the ACCORD trial, and 3473 of these participants had fundus photographs that were centrally read in a standardized fashion by masked graders to assess DME and retinopathy from October 23, 2003, to March 10, 2006. RESULTS: Among the subsample, 695 (20.0%) people had used thiazolidinediones, whereas 217 (6.2%) people had DME. Thiazolidinedione use was not associated with DME in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.44; P = .95) and adjusted (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = .86) analyses. Significant associations with DME were found for retinopathy severity (P < .001) and age (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.952-0.997; P = .03) but not for hemoglobin A(1c) (P = .06), duration of diabetes (P = .65), sex (P = .72), and ethnicity (P = .20). Thiazolidinedione use was associated with slightly greater visual acuity (0.79 letter; 95% CI, 0.20-1.38; P = .009) of uncertain clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In a cross-sectional analysis of data from the largest study to date, no association was observed between thiazolidinedione exposure and DME in patients with type 2 diabetes; however, we cannot exclude a modest protective or harmful association. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00542178.