The Role of Biofactors in Diabetic Microvascular Complications.

Microvascular complications are responsible for a major proportion of the burden associated with diabetes contributing to substantial morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burden in people with diabetes. Retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy constitute the leading causes of blindness, end-stage renal disease, and lower-extremity amputations, respectively. Since the efficacy of causal therapies of diabetic microvascular complications is limited, especially in type 2 diabetes, there is an unmet need for adjunct treatments which should be effective despite ongoing hyperglycemia. Experimental studies have indicated that diabetic microvascular complications can be prevented or ameliorated by various biofactors in animal models by interfering with the pathophysiology of the underlying condition. Some of the findings related to biofactors, like α-lipoic acid and benfotiamine, could be translated into the clinical arena and confirmed in clinical trials, especially in those focusing on diabetic polyneuropathy. Given the micronutrient nature of these compounds, their safety profile is excellent. Thus, they have the potential to favorably modify the natural history of the underlying complication, but long-term clinical trials are required to confirm this notion. Ultimately, biofactors should expand our therapeutic armamentarium against these common, debilitating, and even life-threatening sequelae of diabetes.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the main pathological features of the diabetes mellitus spectrum. It is estimated that in 2020 about 4 million people worldwide suffered from blindness or visual impairment caused by DR. Many patients cannot access treatment, mostly because of high costs, while others discontinue it prematurely due to the high number of intravitreal administrations required, or the occurrence of ocular complications, or discomfort in quality of life. AREAS COVERED: The aims of this paper are to summarize the current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of diabetic retinopathy, focus on the most promising new approaches to treatment that are being evaluated in clinical trials, and outline the potential financial impact of new drugs in future markets. EXPERT OPINION: Slow-release systems with steroids, anti-VEGF or sunitinib are promising. Oral imatinib would avoid the ocular complications of intravitreal drugs. Brolucizumab and abicipar pegol may be superior to aflibercept and ranibizumab with the advantage of less frequent administrations. Faricimab, active on Tie-2 receptors, is being evaluated in two phase 3 clinical trials. Further knowledge of the efficacy and safety of these drugs is necessary before their final approval for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy.

Intravitreal anti-VEGF agents and cardiovascular risk.

Antagonists of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (Anti-VEGF) are widely administered by intravitreal injection for the treatment of ocular pathologies such as Age-related Macular Degeneration, Diabetic Macular Edema, Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and occlusion of retinal vessels. Anti-VEGF agents, in particular bevacizumab, were introduced in oncology to inhibit tumor-induced angiogenesis feeding neoplastic tissues. Subsequently, other specific agents were developed for intraocular administration. Whereas systemic administration of anti-VEGF agents in oncology is burdened by increased risk of arterial hypertension and embolism, agents administered for ophthalmic indications are delivered locally into the eye globe in much smaller quantities. Nevertheless, clinical observations have raised the possibility that, even in these conditions, anti-VEGF agents may increase cardiovascular risk in patients who, being elderly and/or diabetic, are intrinsically prone to such events. This paper aims at reviewing the current knowledge on VEGF and its pharmacologic antagonists from mechanistic and side effect points of view, with specific reference to patients with sight-threatening conditions. Internists should be aware of the need to collaborate with ophthalmologists and pharmacovigilance operators to define as best as possible the risk/benefit balance of intravitreal agents in patients who might lose their sight if left untreated, or increase their risk of suffering a cardiovascular event if treated.

Detection of perimacular red dots and blots when screening for diabetic retinopathy: Refer or not refer?

PURPOSE: Detection of microaneurysms and/or microhaemorrhages near the fovea when screening for diabetic retinopathy poses a problem because referral to retinal specialists may alarm patients and unnecessarily burden ophthalmologists. METHODS: Six-month prospective study of patients found to have minimal red lesions within one disc diameter of the fovea when screened for diabetic retinopathy. Two 45° digital photographs, one centred on the macula and the other nasal including the optic disc, were taken for each eye. All patients received a 6-month re-screening appointment. RESULTS: Out of 70 patients, 41 returned for re-screening. Diabetic retinopathy had worsened in 3 who required referral but no treatment, was unchanged in 19 and was undetectable in the other 19. Haemoglobin A1c decreased from 7.76% ± 1.50% (61.3 ± 16.2 mmol/mol) to 6.93% ± 1.7% (52.3 ± 18.9 mmol/mol) in the patients in whom diabetic retinopathy worsened but did not change in the other groups. Baseline haemoglobin A1c ( p = 0.048) and systolic blood pressure ( p = 0.007) were lower in the patients in whom diabetic retinopathy improved, but a multivariate model including haemoglobin A1c, blood pressure and known disease duration could not identify any independent risk factor. CONCLUSION: Minimal red lesions near the fovea, though commanding early re-screening, do not require immediate referral to retinal specialists.