RESUMO
Cities need climate information to develop resilient infrastructure and for adaptation decisions. The information desired is at the order of magnitudes finer scales relative to what is typically available from climate analysis and future projections. Urban downscaling refers to developing such climate information at the city (order of 1 - 10 km) and neighborhood (order of 0.1 - 1 km) resolutions from coarser climate products. Developing these higher resolution (finer grid spacing) data needed for assessments typically covering multiyear climatology of past data and future projections is complex and computationally expensive for traditional physics-based dynamical models. In this study, we develop and adopt a novel approach for urban downscaling by generating a general-purpose operator using deep learning. This 'DownScaleBench' tool can aid the process of downscaling to any location. The DownScaleBench has been generalized for both in situ (ground- based) and satellite or reanalysis gridded data. The algorithm employs an iterative super-resolution convolutional neural network (Iterative SRCNN) over the city. We apply this for the development of a high-resolution gridded precipitation product (300 m) from a relatively coarse (10 km) satellite-based product (JAXA GsMAP). The high-resolution gridded precipitation datasets is compared against insitu observations for past heavy rain events over Austin, Texas, and shows marked improvement relative to the coarser datasets relative to cubic interpolation as a baseline. The creation of this Downscaling Bench has implications for generating high-resolution gridded urban meteorological datasets and aiding the planning process for climate-ready cities.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To determine clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML), compared with standard laser (SL), for diabetic macular edema (DME) with central retinal thickness (CRT) < 400 µm. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomized, noninferiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with center-involved DME < 400 µm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in one/both eyes. METHODS: Randomization 1:1 to 577 nm SML or SL treatment. Retreatments were allowed. Rescue with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was permitted if 10 or more ETDRS letter loss occurred, CRT increased > 400 µm, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 24 months (noninferiority margin 5 ETDRS letters). Secondary outcomes were mean change from baseline to month 24 in binocular BCVA; CRT and mean deviation of Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; percentage meeting driving standards; EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), and Vision and Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) scores; cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained; adverse effects; and number of laser and rescue treatments. RESULTS: The study recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of SML-treated and 86% of SL-treated patients had primary outcome data. Mean ± standard deviation BCVA change from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 ± 8.20 letters and -0.45 ± 6.72 letters in the SML and SL groups, respectively. Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was deemed not only noninferior but also equivalent to SL therapy because the 95% confidence interval (CI; -3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 ETDRS letters). No statistically significant difference was found in binocular BCVA (0.32 ETDRS letters; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.64 ETDRS letters; P = 0.63); CRT (-0.64 µm; 95% CI, -14.25 to 12.98 µm; P = 0.93); mean deviation of the visual field (0.39 decibels (dB); 95% CI, -0.23 to 1.02 dB; P = 0.21); meeting driving standards (percentage point difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -25.3% to 28.5%; P = 0.91); adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-1.34; P = 0.11); rescue treatments (percentage point difference, -2.8%; 95% CI, -13.1% to 7.5%; P = 0.59); or EQ-5D, NEI-VFQ-25, or VisQoL scores. Number of laser treatments was higher in the SML group (0.48; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79; P = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no differences in costs or QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was equivalent to SL therapy, requiring slightly higher laser treatments.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus , Retinopatia Diabética , Edema Macular , Adulto , Humanos , Edema Macular/tratamento farmacológico , Retinopatia Diabética/cirurgia , Retinopatia Diabética/tratamento farmacológico , Qualidade de Vida , Fotocoagulação a Laser/efeitos adversos , Acuidade Visual , Retina , Injeções Intravítreas , Inibidores da Angiogênese , Ranibizumab/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus , Retinopatia Diabética , Edema Macular , Humanos , Adulto , Edema Macular/cirurgia , Retinopatia Diabética/cirurgia , Ranibizumab/efeitos adversos , Bevacizumab/efeitos adversos , Qualidade de Vida , Fatores de Crescimento Endotelial/uso terapêutico , Fotocoagulação a Laser/efeitos adversos , Fotocoagulação a Laser/métodos , LasersRESUMO
First-line treatment of centrally involved diabetic macular oedema (CI-DMO) is often with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agent. Although this can provide efficacy in the majority of eyes, a sizeable proportion do not respond sufficiently and many continue to receive anti-VEGF therapy after it may be optimal. This imposes a treatment burden on both patients and clinicians and, most importantly of all, can be sight threatening. Changing treatment to an intravitreal corticosteroid implant at the appropriate time may help optimise patient outcomes and reduce injection frequency, thereby reducing treatment burden. Eight retina specialists convened to discuss how to ensure eyes with CI-DMO receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy are evaluated for a potential change to intravitreal corticosteroid therapy at the most effective time in their treatment journey. They concluded that clear criteria on when to consider changing treatment would be helpful and so developed a consensus guideline covering key decision points such as when and how to assess response to anti-VEGF therapy, when to consider a change to corticosteroid therapy and when and how to assess the response to corticosteroid therapy. The guideline was developed before the COVID-19 pandemic but, with the additional challenges arising from this including even greater pressure on clinic capacity, it is more important than ever to reconsider current working practices and adopt changes to improve patient care while also easing pressure on clinic capacity, reducing hospital visits and maintaining patient safety. This publication therefore also includes suggestions for adapting the guidelines in the COVID-19 era.
RESUMO
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).
Assuntos
Retinopatia Diabética/cirurgia , Fotocoagulação a Laser/métodos , Edema Macular/cirurgia , Ensaios Clínicos Pragmáticos como Assunto , Análise Custo-Benefício , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Método Duplo-Cego , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Tamanho da Amostra , Acuidade VisualRESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe a case of radiation maculopathy as a result of intraretinal neovascularization, treated with intravitreal bevacizumab. METHODS: This is an interventional case report. A 51-year-old man was treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. He developed radiation maculopathy associated with intraretinal neovascularization in the left eye. He underwent a course of 3 intravitreal injections of bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 mL). RESULTS: The visual acuity in the left eye improved with complete closure of the intraretinal neovascularization and no recurrence 17 months after the last bevacizumab injection. CONCLUSION: This case of radiation-induced intraretinal neovascularization responded well to bevacizumab treatment. These lesions may respond more favorably if treated earlier.
RESUMO
The pathogenesis of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is unclear, but it can take either a neovascular/exudative/wet form, characterized by choroidal neovascularization (CNV), or a dry form. No treatments are available for the dry form, but there are a number of pharmacological interventions that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which is central to the pathogenesis of CNV and neovascular AMD. Available anti-VEGF agents either target all active VEGF isoforms (eg, ranibizumab), or take a more selective approach and inhibit only VEGF(165) (eg, pegaptantib sodium). Current guidance on their use is equivocal and restrictive at best, resulting in associated difficulties in securing adequate, timely funding for treatment. The Moorfields Eye Hospital undertook an audit of 70 patients receiving intravitreal (ITV) pegaptanib sodium on a pro re nata (prn) dosing schedule. Despite initial funding delays, the audit recorded superior treatment outcomes compared with those reported in the VISION trials at 12 weeks: 88% of audit patients maintained stable vision, 29% gained vision and 6% experienced severe vision loss compared with 70%, >/=6% and =10% of patients in VISION at 54 weeks, respectively. The audit indicates a positive correlation between patients with better baseline visual acuity (VA) and improved therapeutic benefits, including a greater likelihood of both vision gain and vision preservation. Experience at Moorfields also suggests that pegaptanib sodium is more useful in occult lesions than minimally classic lesions, and clinical experience suggests that combination therapies may offer the best approach with anti-VEGF therapies. Further randomized clinical trials will help better determine the optimal treatment strategies with pegaptanib sodium in neovascular AMD.