Persistent diabetic macular edema: Definition, incidence, biomarkers, and treatment methods.

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment has drastically improved the visual and anatomical outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME); however, success is not always guaranteed, and a proportion of these eyes demonstrate persistent DME (pDME) despite intensive treatment. While standardized criteria to define these treatment-resistant eyes have not yet been established, many studies refer to eyes with no clinical response or an unsatisfactory partial response as having pDME. A patient is considered to have pDME if the retinal thickness improves less than 10-25% after 6 months of treatment. A range of treatment options have been recommended for eyes with pDME, including switching anti-VEGF agents, using corticosteroids and/or antioxidant drugs in adjunct with anti-VEGF therapy, and vitrectomy. In addition, multimodal imaging of DME eyes may be advantageous in predicting the responsiveness to treatment; this is beneficial when initiating alternative therapies. We explore the literature on persistent DME regarding its defining criteria, incidence, the baseline biological markers that may be useful in anticipating the response to treatment, and the available treatment options.

Burden and Risk Factors of Diabetic Retinopathy Among Diabetic Patients Attending a Multispecialty Tertiary Eye Hospital in Nepal.

INTRODUCTION: As the number of people with diabetes mellitus is increasing because of urbanization and change in dietary habits and sedentary lifestyle, the number of diabetic retinopathy is also expected to increase in future. [1] [sa2] We aimed to find out the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and associated risk factors among diabetic patients in the tertiary eye hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is the observational cross-sectional study enrolling 420 diabetic patients visiting the multispecialty tertiary eye hospital between March 2020 and February 2021. Anthropometry measurement, laboratory risk profiles and blood pressure were recorded Results: The prevalence of any diabetic retinopathy, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema were 30.96 %, 6.19 %, and 5.95 % respectively. The duration of DM (p=0.001), hypertension (p=0.04), high SBP (p=0.023), abdominal obesity (p=0.015), high LDL(p=0.011) cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol(p=0.012), and creatinine (p=0.001) were associated with DR in our study. CONCLUSION: A holistic approach should target to control the modifiable risk factors like blood sugar, blood pressure, lipid profile, kidney function, and obesity to prevent DR. Anthropometric assessment of waist to height and waist circumference should be included in the holistic health promotion strategy in Nepal as BMI may not be risk factors for DR in Nepalese people.

Diabetic macular edema.

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of preventable blindness world-wide. Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most common cause of moderate vision loss in patients with diabetes. Although treatments for DME have improved significantly over the past decades, the burden of this disease remains high for patients and the healthcare system alike. The role of the primary care provider is critical in the prevention and prompt referral for management of DME.

Longitudinal Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy in a Nationwide Screening Program: Comparing Deep Learning and Human Graders.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening via deep learning (DL) and trained human graders (HG) in a longitudinal cohort, as case spectrum shifts based on treatment referral and new-onset DR. METHODS: We randomly selected patients with diabetes screened twice, two years apart within a nationwide screening program. The reference standard was established via adjudication by retina specialists. Each patient's color fundus photographs were graded, and a patient was considered as having sight-threatening DR (STDR) if the worse eye had severe nonproliferative DR, proliferative DR, or diabetic macular edema. We compared DR screening via two modalities: DL and HG. For each modality, we simulated treatment referral by excluding patients with detected STDR from the second screening using that modality. RESULTS: There were 5,738 patients (12.3% STDR) in the first screening. DL and HG captured different numbers of STDR cases, and after simulated referral and excluding ungradable cases, 4,148 and 4,263 patients remained in the second screening, respectively. The STDR prevalence at the second screening was 5.1% and 6.8% for DL- and HG-based screening, respectively. Along with the prevalence decrease, the sensitivity for both modalities decreased from the first to the second screening (DL: from 95% to 90%, p = 0.008; HG: from 74% to 57%, p < 0.001). At both the first and second screenings, the rate of false negatives for the DL was a fifth that of HG (0.5-0.6% vs. 2.9-3.2%). CONCLUSION: On 2-year longitudinal follow-up of a DR screening cohort, STDR prevalence decreased for both DL- and HG-based screening. Follow-up screenings in longitudinal DR screening can be more difficult and induce lower sensitivity for both DL and HG, though the false negative rate was substantially lower for DL. Our data may be useful for health-economics analyses of longitudinal screening settings.

TREATMENT PATTERNS AND 2-YEAR VISION OUTCOMES WITH BEVACIZUMAB IN DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA: An Analysis From a Large U.S. Integrated Health Care System.

PURPOSE: To assess health care utilization and vision outcomes over 2 years in patients receiving bevacizumab treatment in clinical practice for diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed diabetic macular edema who received an intravitreal bevacizumab injection within 12 months of initial diagnosis were identified from Kaiser Permanente's 350,000 patients with diabetes mellitus treated between 2008 and 2013. Snellen best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), number of intravitreal injections, and patient characteristics were abstracted from the electronic record. The main outcome measure was change in BCVA. RESULTS: Three hundred and nine patients met the inclusion criteria and had 2 years of follow-up after their first bevacizumab injection. These patients had a mean of 3.1 injections (range, 1-17) during the 2-year follow-up. Mean BCVA improvement was 5.4 letters at 12 months and 5.3 letters at 24 months. Only 29.8% of patients demonstrated ≥3 lines of vision improvement from baseline, whereas 12.3% had ≥3 lines of vision loss from baseline at 24 months. CONCLUSION: This is the largest U.S. clinical practice-based study of bevacizumab use in diabetic macular edema. Consistent with national studies, the frequency of injection was low. Average BCVA improvement was lower than in anti-vascular endothelial growth factor trials. Significant BCVA improvement was achieved in approximately 30% of patients with newly diagnosed diabetic macular edema.

Rates of referable eye disease in the Scottish National Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Programme.

AIMS: Diabetic retinopathy screening aims to detect people at risk of visual loss due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, but also refers cases of suspected macular oedema (maculopathy). At the introduction of screening, ophthalmology was concerned that referral rates would be unmanageable. We report yield of referable disease by referral reason for the first 5 years of the programme. METHODS: We extracted screening results from a nationwide clinical diabetes database to calculate annual referral rates to ophthalmic clinics. We used logistic regression to examine associations between clinical measures and referable disease. RESULTS: 182 397 people underwent ≥ 1successful retinal screening between 2006 and 2010. The yield of referable eye disease was highest in the first 2 years of screening (7.0% and 6.0%) before stabilising at ∼4.3%. The majority of referrals are due to maculopathy with 73% of referrals in 2010 based on a finding of maculopathy. CONCLUSIONS: The commonest cause for referral is for suspected macular oedema (maculopathy). Referral rates for retinopathy have stabilised, as predicted, at relatively low rates. However, ophthalmology workload continues to rise as new treatment options (ie, monthly intraocular injections) have unexpectedly increased the impact on ophthalmology. A review of the screening referral path for maculopathy may be timely.