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.

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.

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.

Incorporating Optical Coherence Tomography Macula Scans Enhances Cost-effectiveness of Fundus Photography-Based Screening for Diabetic Macular Edema.

OBJECTIVE: To compare four screening strategies for diabetic macular edema (DME). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients attending diabetic retinopathy screening were recruited and received macular optical coherence tomography (OCT), in addition to visual acuity (VA) and fundus photography (FP) assessments, as part of the standard protocol. Two retina specialists provided the reference grading by independently assessing each subject's screened data for DME. The current standard protocol (strategy A) was compared for sensitivity, specificity, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with three alternative candidate protocols using a simulation model with the same subjects. In strategy B, macular hemorrhage or microaneurysm on FP were removed as surrogate markers for possible DME. Strategy C used best-corrected instead of habitual/pinhole VA and added central subfield thickness (CST) >290 µm on OCT in suspected cases as a confirmation marker for possible DME. Strategy D used CST >290 µm OCT in all subjects as a surrogate marker for suspected DME. RESULTS: We recruited 2,277 subjects (mean age 62.80 ± 11.75 years, 43.7% male). The sensitivities and specificities were 40.95% and 86.60%, 22.86% and 95.63%, 32.38% and 100%, and 74.47% and 98.34% for strategies A, B, C, and D, respectively. The costs (in U.S. dollars) of each QALY gained for strategies A, B, C, and D were $7,447.50, $8,428.70, $5,992.30, and $4,113.50, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The high false-positive rate of the current protocol generates unnecessary referrals, which are inconvenient for patients and costly for society. Incorporating universal OCT for screening DME can reduce false-positive results by eightfold, while improving sensitivity and long-term cost-effectiveness.

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.

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).

Improving the cost-effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema: a prospective, multi-centre, UK study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Retinal screening programmes in England and Scotland have similar photographic grading schemes for background (non-proliferative) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, but diverge over maculopathy. We looked for the most cost-effective method of identifying diabetic macular oedema from retinal photographs including the role of automated grading and optical coherence tomography, a technology that directly visualises oedema. METHODS: Patients from seven UK centres were recruited. The following features in at least one eye were required for enrolment: microaneurysms/dot haemorrhages or blot haemorrhages within one disc diameter, or exudates within one or two disc diameters of the centre of the macula. Subjects had optical coherence tomography and digital photography. Manual and automated grading schemes were evaluated. Costs and QALYs were modelled using microsimulation techniques. RESULTS: 3540 patients were recruited, 3170 were analysed. For diabetic macular oedema, England's scheme had a sensitivity of 72.6% and specificity of 66.8%; Scotland's had a sensitivity of 59.5% and specificity of 79.0%. When applying a ceiling ratio of £30,000 per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, Scotland's scheme was preferred. Assuming automated grading could be implemented without increasing grading costs, automation produced a greater number of QALYS for a lower cost than England's scheme, but was not cost effective, at the study's operating point, compared with Scotland's. The addition of optical coherence tomography, to each scheme, resulted in cost savings without reducing health benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Retinal screening programmes in the UK should reconsider the screening pathway to make best use of existing and new technologies.