Two-year recall for people with no diabetic retinopathy: a multi-ethnic population-based retrospective cohort study using real-world data to quantify the effect.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The English Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) offers people living with diabetes (PLD) annual screening. Less frequent screening has been advocated among PLD without diabetic retinopathy (DR), but evidence for each ethnic group is limited. We examined the potential effect of biennial versus annual screening on the detection of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) among PLD without DR from a large urban multi-ethnic English DESP. METHODS: PLD in North-East London DESP (January 2012 to December 2021) with no DR on two prior consecutive screening visits with up to 8 years of follow-up were examined. Annual STDR and PDR incidence rates, overall and by ethnicity, were quantified. Delays in identification of STDR and PDR events had 2-year screening intervals been used were determined. FINDINGS: Among 82 782 PLD (37% white, 36% South Asian, and 16% black people), there were 1788 incident STDR cases over mean (SD) 4.3 (2.4) years (STDR rate 0.51, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.55 per 100-person-years). STDR incidence rates per 100-person-years by ethnicity were 0.55 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.62) for South Asian, 0.34 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.40) for white, and 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.90) for black people. Biennial screening would have delayed diagnosis by 1 year for 56.3% (1007/1788) with STDR and 43.6% (45/103) with PDR. Standardised cumulative rates of delayed STDR per 100 000 persons for each ethnic group were 1904 (95% CI 1683 to 2154) for black people, 1276 (95% CI 1153 to 1412) for South Asian people, and 844 (95% CI 745 to 955) for white people. INTERPRETATION: Biennial screening would have delayed detection of some STDR and PDR by 1 year, especially among those of black ethnic origin, leading to healthcare inequalities.

Formal registration of visual impairment in people with diabetic retinopathy significantly underestimates the scale of the problem: a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care eye hospital service in the UK.

AIMS: To analyse the prevalence of visual impairment (VI), compare it to certification of visual impairment (CVI) and analyse VI associations in patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study, which included 8007 patients with DR referred from the English diabetic eye screening programme to a tertiary referral eye hospital. Main outcome measure was VI, defined as vision in the best eye of <6/24. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression for VI as primary outcome of interest, controlling for age, sex, type of diabetes, baseline DR grade, ethnicity and index of multiple deprivation (IMD). RESULTS: Mean age was 64.5 (SD 13.6) years; 61% of patients were men; and 31% of South Asian ethnicity. There were 68 patients with CVI during the study period, and 84% (272/325) of patients with VI did not have CVI after a mean follow-up of 1.87 (SD ±0.86) years. Older age showed a positive association with VI (OR per decade rise 1.88, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.08; p=1.8×10-34). Men had a lower risk of VI (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.79, p=6.0×10-5), and less deprivation had a graded inverse association with VI (OR per IMD category increase 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93, p value for linear trend 0.002). CONCLUSION: The majority of people with vision impairment are not registered at the point of care, which could translate to underestimation of diabetes-related VI and all-cause VI at a national level if replicated at other centres. Further work is needed to explore rates of VI and uptake of registration.

Intraretinal pigmented cells in retinal degenerative disease.

PURPOSE: Invasion of pigmented cells into the retina occurs in retinal degenerative diseases, such as macular telangiectasia type 2 (MacTel) and retinitis pigmentosa (RP). These intraretinal pigmented cells may be derived from the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), but differences and similarities between intraretinal pigmented cells and RPE have so far not been well characterised.Clinicopathologic case report. METHOD: Here, we compared intraretinal pigment cells with RPE cells by immunohistochemistry. Immunohistological stains for classic RPE markers (RPE65, CRALBP and KRT18) and blood vessel markers (lectin and collagen 4) were done on sections from postmortem eye tissue from two MacTel donors, an RP donor and a control donor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence of specific immunohistochemistry markers on intraretinal pigmented and RPE cells. RESULTS: We found that intraretinal pigmented cells did not express RPE65 and CRALBP, with a small subset expressing them weakly. However, they all expressed KRT18, which was also present in normal RPE cells. Interestingly, we also found clusters of KRT18-positive cells in the retina that were not pigmented. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that RPE cells invading the retina dedifferentiate (losing classic RPE markers) and can be pigmented or unpigmented. Therefore, the number of RPE cells invading the retina in retinal degenerative disease may be underappreciated by funduscopy.