Effectiveness of Conventional Digital Fundus Photography-Based Teleretinal Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: This American Academy of Ophthalmology Ophthalmic Technology Assessment aims to assess the effectiveness of conventional teleretinal screening (TS) in detecting diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed database was conducted most recently in July 2023 to identify data published between 2006 and 2023 on any of the following elements related to TS effectiveness: (1) the accuracy of TS in detecting DR or DME compared with traditional ophthalmic screening with dilated fundus examination or 7-standard field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study photography, (2) the impact of TS on DR screening compliance rates or other patient behaviors, and (3) cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction of TS compared with traditional DR screening. Identified studies then were rated based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine grading system. RESULTS: Eight level I studies, 14 level II studies, and 2 level III studies were identified in total. Although cross-study comparison is challenging because of differences in reference standards and grading methods, TS demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and good specificity in detecting DR; moderate to good agreement between TS and reference-standard DR grading was observed. Performance of TS was not as robust in detecting DME, although the number of studies evaluating DME specifically was limited. Two level I studies, 5 level II studies, and 1 level III study supported that TS had a positive impact on overall DR screening compliance, even increasing it by more than 2-fold in one study. Studies assessing cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction were not graded formally, but they generally showed that TS was cost-effective and preferred by patients over traditional surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional TS is an effective approach to DR screening not only for its accuracy in detecting referable-level disease, but also for improving screening compliance in a cost-effective manner that may be preferred by patients. Further research is needed to elucidate the ideal approach of TS that may involve integration of artificial intelligence or other imaging technologies in the future. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Deep learning-based signal-independent assessment of macular avascular area on 6×6 mm optical coherence tomography angiogram in diabetic retinopathy: a comparison to instrument-embedded software.

SYNOPSIS: A deep-learning-based macular extrafoveal avascular area (EAA) on a 6×6 mm optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiogram is less dependent on the signal strength and shadow artefacts, providing better diagnostic accuracy for diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity than the commercial software measured extrafoveal vessel density (EVD). AIMS: To compare a deep-learning-based EAA to commercial output EVD in the diagnostic accuracy of determining DR severity levels from 6×6 mm OCT angiography (OCTA) scans. METHODS: The 6×6 mm macular OCTA scans were acquired on one eye of each participant with a spectral-domain OCTA system. After excluding the central 1 mm diameter circle, the EAA on superficial vascular complex was measured with a deep-learning-based algorithm, and the EVD was obtained with commercial software. RESULTS: The study included 34 healthy controls and 118 diabetic patients. EAA and EVD were highly correlated with DR severity (ρ=0.812 and -0.577, respectively, both p<0.001) and visual acuity (r=-0.357 and 0.420, respectively, both p<0.001). EAA had a significantly (p<0.001) higher correlation with DR severity than EVD. With the specificity at 95%, the sensitivities of EAA for differentiating diabetes mellitus (DM), DR and severe DR from control were 80.5%, 92.0% and 100.0%, respectively, significantly higher than those of EVD 11.9% (p=0.001), 13.6% (p<0.001) and 15.8% (p<0.001), respectively. EVD was significantly correlated with signal strength index (SSI) (r=0.607, p<0.001) and shadow area (r=-0.530, p<0.001), but EAA was not (r=-0.044, p=0.805 and r=-0.046, p=0.796, respectively). Adjustment of EVD with SSI and shadow area lowered sensitivities for detection of DM, DR and severe DR. CONCLUSION: Macular EAA on 6×6 mm OCTA measured with a deep learning-based algorithm is less dependent on the signal strength and shadow artefacts, and provides better diagnostic accuracy for DR severity than EVD measured with the instrument-embedded software.

Intravitreal Pharmacotherapies for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To review the evidence on the safety and efficacy of current anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and intravitreal corticosteroid pharmacotherapies for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: Literature searches were last conducted on May 13, 2020, in the PubMed database with no date restrictions and limited to articles published in English. The combined searches yielded 230 citations, of which 108 were reviewed in full text. Of these, 31 were deemed appropriate for inclusion in this assessment and were assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist. RESULTS: Only the 21 articles with level I evidence were included in this assessment. Seventeen articles provided level I evidence for 1 or more anti-VEGF pharmacotherapies, including ranibizumab (14), aflibercept (5), and bevacizumab (2) alone or in combination with other treatments for DME. Level I evidence was identified in 7 articles on intravitreal corticosteroid therapy for treatment of DME: triamcinolone (1), dexamethasone (4), and fluocinolone acetonide (2). CONCLUSIONS: Review of the available literature indicates that intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents and corticosteroids are efficacious treatments for DME. Elevated intraocular pressure and cataract progression are important potential complications of corticosteroid therapy. Further evidence is required to assess the comparative efficacy of these therapies. Given the limited high-quality comparative efficacy data, choice of therapy must be individualized for each patient and broad therapeutic access for patients is critical to maximize outcomes.