Sight-threatening Diabetic Eye Disease Research Articles

Endotrophin as a risk marker of mortality and kidney complications in a type 1 diabetes cohort.

Hyperglycemia triggers pathological pathways leading to fibrosis, where extracellular matrix (ECM) components are accumulated. We investigated the potential of endotrophin, a pro-fibrotic molecule generated during collagen type VI formation, as a risk marker for complications to type 1 diabetes. Endotrophin was measured in serum and urine from 1,468 persons with type 1 diabetes. Outcomes included a composite kidney endpoint, first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), all-cause mortality, progression of albuminuria, incident heart failure, and sight-threatening diabetic eye disease. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for conventional risk factors were applied. A doubling of serum endotrophin was independently associated with the kidney endpoint (n = 30/1,462; hazard ratio 3.39 [95% CI: 1.98-5.82]), all-cause mortality (n = 93/1,468; 1.44 [1.03-2.0]), and progression of albuminuria (n = 80/1,359; 1.82 [1.32-2.52]), but not with first MACE, heart failure, or sight-threatening diabetic eye disease after adjustment. Urinary endotrophin was not associated with any outcome after adjustment. Serum endotrophin was a risk marker for mortality and kidney complications in type 1 diabetes. Biomarkers of ECM remodeling, such as serum endotrophin, may identify persons with active pro-fibrotic processes at risk for complications in diabetes and where antifibrotic agents may reduce this risk.

The Integration of Diabetic Eye Screening into Hemodialysis Units in Northern Ireland.

Diabetes is rising globally and is the most common cause of both end-stage renal disease and blindness. People on hemodialysis have to attend several dialysis appointments per week, which can affect their attendance at diabetic eye screening. In addition, previous literature suggests patients on hemodialysis are more likely to have sight-threatening diabetic eye disease. This study aims to determine attendance at the Diabetic Eye Screening Program in Northern Ireland, diabetic retinopathy severity, and use of handheld retinal imaging in people with diabetes attending hemodialysis units in Northern Ireland. All patients with diabetes attending hemodialysis clinics regionally were screened and graded by the Diabetic Eye Screening Program in Northern Ireland using a handheld and/or conventional nonmydriatic fundus camera. All eligible people (N=149) were offered a Diabetic Eye Screening Program in Northern Ireland appointment, 132 attended, 34% of whom had not been seen in >3 years and 15% of whom had never attended the Diabetic Eye Screening Program in Northern Ireland despite multiple previous appointments. Altogether, 13% required urgent referral to hospital eye services, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.4%. Those on hemodialysis are at high risk for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Implementing the Diabetic Eye Screening Program in Northern Ireland in hemodialysis clinics enables timely diagnosis and referral.

United Kingdom Diabetic Retinopathy Electronic Medical Record (UK DR EMR) Users Group: report 4, real-world data on the impact of deprivation on the presentation of diabetic eye disease at hospital services.

AimTo assess the impact of deprivation on diabetic retinopathy presentation and related treatment interventions, as observed within the UK hospital eye service.MethodsThis is a multicentre, national diabetic retinopathy database study with anonymised data extraction across 22 centres from an electronic medical record system. The following were the inclusion criteria: all patients with diabetes and a recorded, structured diabetic retinopathy grade. The minimum data set included, for baseline, age and Index of Multiple Deprivation, based on residential postcode; and for all time points, visual acuity, ETDRS grading of retinopathy and maculopathy, and interventions (laser, intravitreal therapies and surgery). The main outcome measures were (1) visual acuity and binocular visual state, and (2) presence of sight-threatening complications and need for early treatment.Results79 775 patients met the inclusion criteria. Deprivation was associated with later presentation in patients with diabetic eye disease: the OR of being sight-impaired at entry into the hospital eye service (defined as 6/18 to better than 3/60 in the better seeing eye) was 1.29 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.39) for the most deprived decile vs 0.77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.86) for the least deprived decile; the OR for being severely sight-impaired (3/60 or worse in the better seeing eye) was 1.17 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.55) for the most deprived decile vs 0.88 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.27) for the least deprived decile (reference=fifth decile in all cases). There is also variation in sight-threatening complications at presentation and treatment undertaken: the least deprived deciles had lower chance of having a tractional retinal detachment (OR=0.48 and 0.58 for deciles 9 and 10, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90 and 0.29 to 1.09, respectively); in terms of accessing treatment, the rate of having a vitrectomy was lowest in the most deprived cohort (OR=0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.58).ConclusionsThis large real-world study suggests that first presentation at a hospital eye clinic with visual loss or sight-threatening diabetic eye disease is associated with deprivation. These initial hospital visits represent the first opportunities to receive treatment and to formally engage with support services. Such patients are more likely to be sight-impaired or severely sight-impaired at presentation, and may need additional resources to engage with the hospital eye services over complex treatment schedules.

Imaging in Diabetic Retinopathy: A Review of Current and Future Techniques.

Diabetic eye disease is the most common cause of blindness worldwide in the population under 65 years of age. The prevalence of sight-threatening diabetic eye disease continues to rise rapidly, resulting in an increasing burden on health systems worldwide. This highlights the need to develop new tools to help in the screening, diagnosis and management of diabetic eye disease. This review aims to provide a brief overview of the current standard in care for diabetic eye disease, before providing an up to date overview of newer imaging modalities, with potential application in the management of diabetic eye care. A literature search for the terms "enhanced depth imaging OCT", "swept source OCT", "retinal oximetry", "OCT angiography", "fundus autofluorescence" with the term "diabetes" was performed using the pubmed and google scholar databases. Only articles published within the last two years were selected for use in this article. There has been a rapid increase in the available imaging techniques used to manage diabetic eye disease. To date there has been variable use of these next generation imaging techniques. A greater understanding of how phenotypic findings link to the risk of sight loss is required before there is more widespread adoption by mainstream diabetic eye services.

Sight-threatening diabetic eye disease: an update and review of the literature.

Diabetic eye disease is the third most important cause of visual loss in England and Wales, after age-related macular degeneration and glaucoma.1 In contrast to the first two, the evidence shows that effective treatment for diabetic eye disease begins not in the eye clinic, but in the GP practice. Vision-threatening consequences of diabetes include proliferative retinopathy and maculopathy. Proliferative retinopathy may cause vitreous haemorrhage and retinal detachment with catastrophic loss of vision. Maculopathy refers to oedema at the macula, secondary to retinal capillary leakage, with consequent loss of central visual acuity. In the UK, all patients with diabetes who are not already under the care of the eye clinic should be enrolled in a retinopathy-screening programme.2 Patients are referred to an ophthalmologist if there is evidence of proliferative or pre-proliferative retinopathy or maculopathy. Letters about the patient will refer to the retinopathy grade, which is potentially bewildering, but can be readily decoded (Table 1). In the English system, the retinopathy grades R1, R2, and R3 are equivalent to ‘background’, ‘pre-proliferative’, and ‘proliferative’. The Scottish system is different and incorporates three grades of non-proliferative retinopathy.2 Therefore, (in the English system; Table 1) a patient graded ‘R2 M1 P0’ will have pre-proliferative retinopathy, evidence of maculopathy, and no visible photocoagulation scars. View this table: Table 1. Making sense of the diabetic patient’s screening letter …

Ambulatory photographic screening for diabetic retinopathy in nursing homes.

To evaluate the feasibility and cost of screening for diabetic eye disease in homebound nursing home residents not attending a systematic screening programme. Postal survey identification of residents with diabetes in all nursing homes in Liverpool. An ophthalmologist and nurse performed Bailey-Lovie logmar visual acuity (VA), portable slit-lamp examination, fundus photography, and subjective assessment of ability to cooperate with treatment in a sample of homes. Modified Wisconsin photographic grading was performed. Screen-positive patients were invited to a dedicated assessment clinic. Sight-threatening diabetic eye disease (STED) was defined as any of: moderate preproliferative retinopathy or worse, circinate maculopathy, or exudate within 1 disc diameter of fixation. A total of 54 (78%) nursing homes responded reporting 199/2427 (8.2%) residents with diabetes. Of these, 64/80 (80%) residents in 17 homes were examined: VA possible in 50 (78%); slit-lamp examination in 56 (88%); gradable photographs in at least one eye in 34 (53%); STED in 12 (35%) patients. In all, 35 (70%) patients had Snellen-equivalent VA worse than 6/12 in the better eye, of whom 13 (26%) were worse than 6/60. Of 29 screen positive patients, 12 attended the assessment clinic: one was unable to cooperate outside the home; 11 continue under ophthalmic review, four for previously undetected STED of which one listed for laser photocoagulation. Total cost pound 16,980; cost per screen event pound 60.30. Systematic eye screening in homebound patients with diabetes detects disease but follow-up and treatment is only feasible in a small proportion and at high cost. Alternative targeted assessment is recommended.

Prevalence of diabetic eye disease in patients entering a systematic primary care-based eye screening programme.

Large-scale, baseline prevalence measurements in a population at the institution of systematic retinal screening are currently unavailable. We report the prevalence of all grades of retinopathy at entry into a systematic primary care-based diabetic eye screening programme. Primary care-based photographic screening utilizing mydriasis and three-field non-stereoscopic photography for all patients with diabetes (except those under continuing care of an ophthalmologist) in Liverpool. Sight-threatening diabetic eye disease (STED) was defined as any of: moderate preproliferative retinopathy or worse, circinate maculopathy or exudates within one disc diameter of the centre of fovea. Type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) (n = 831): baseline prevalence (95% confidence interval (CI)) of any retinopathy, proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and STED was 45.7% (42.3-49.1), 3.7% (2.4-5.0) and 16.4% (13.9-18.9), respectively. Presence of STED was associated with increased disease duration (odds ratio (OR) 1.09 per year; P < 0.0001) and higher in men (OR 2.15; P = 0.001). Type 2 DM (n = 7231): baseline prevalence (95% CI) of any retinopathy, PDR and STED was 25.3% (24.3-26.3), 0.5% (0.3-0.7) and 6.0% (5.5-6.5), respectively. Presence of STED was associated with longer time since diagnosis of DM (OR 1.03; P < 0.0001) and insulin use (OR 2.46; P < 0.0001). This study provides baseline information for health providers on prevalence of all grades of retinopathy and STED in a large population at the establishment of systematic screening. Baseline prevalence of STED was high and highest in patients with a longer disease duration in both Type 1 and Type 2 DM.

Does direct ophthalmoscopy improve retinal screening for diabetic eye disease by retinal photography?

To identify whether after performing retinal photography, direct ophthalmoscopy can improve the yield of screening for the detection of sight-threatening diabetic eye disease (STDED). Patients (n = 408) who had previously received both dilated direct ophthalmoscopy by a diabetologist and retinal photography graded by a diabetologist within 3 months of each other were included. The results of the other screening modality were not available to the grader/screener. The first 308 patients were consecutive attendees at the clinic who fulfilled the study criteria and 100 were selected because they were identified as having potential STDED by either one of these modalities. An ophthalmologist using slit lamp biomicroscopy then examined patients identified with potential STDED. In 357 (88%) patients there was agreement between the two modalities about whether referral to an ophthalmologist was required (kappa 0.62). Retinal photography identified 38 patients for referral to ophthalmology which ophthalmoscopy missed. Of these, the ophthalmologist agreed that STDED was present in 32 (84%) and four patients required early laser. Ophthalmoscopy identified 13 patients for referral who were not identified by photography. Of these, the ophthalmologist agreed with the diabetologist that STDED was present in seven (54%) and one patient required early laser. Ophthalmoscopy may identify the occasional patient with diabetes who has STDED which is missed by retinal photography. For a systematic retinal screening programme, adding ophthalmoscopy to retinal photography will increase false-positive referrals and is likely to detect only a few extra patients requiring laser.

Prevalence of diabetic eye disease in an inner city population: the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Study.

To measure the population prevalence of diabetic eye disease in an inner city setting. As part of a systematic screening programme all adult diabetic patients in four general practices were invited to attend for slit-lamp biomicroscopy by a retinal specialist. Data on non-attenders were available from community-based photography. Of 395 diabetic patients identified, 326 attended biomicroscopy with photographic data available on a further 31, giving a 90% compliance rate. Point prevalence of diabetes in the target population was 12.4/ 1000. Demographic data included: mean age 60 years (range 13-92 years); type of control: type I 49, type II insulin-requiring (IR) 40, type II non-insulin-requiring (NIR) 268. Prevalences were as follows: any retinopathy: of all diabetic patients 33.6%, type I 36.7%, type II IR 45.0%, type II NIR 31.3%; proliferative/ advanced: all 1.1%, type I 2.0%, type II IR 0, type II NIR 1.1%; clinically significant macular oedema: all 6.4%, type I 2.3%, type II IR 16.2%, type II NIR 5.7%. The percentage of patients with retinopathy requiring follow-up by an opthalmologist was 4.5%, and 9.2% had macular exudates within 1 disc diameter of fixation or significant circinate maculopathy. Sight-threatening diabetic eye disease (STED) was found in 13.4%. A visual acuity of < or = 6/24 in the better eye occurred in 12 (3.4%) patients and of < or = 6/60 in the better eye in 3 (0.8%). Compared with previous population studies, prevalences appear to have declined in type I, but remain high in type II diabetic patients and especially in those requiring insulin.

Detection of sight-threatening diabetic eye disease.

Blindness due to diabetes mellitus is potentially preventable in the majority of patient. Early detection of sight-threatening changes is associated with a better outcome, indicating the need to screen for retinopathy. At least 50% of diabetic patients do not attend a hospital, so that diabetologists and ophthalmologists are unable to screen the diabetic population comprehensively. Although in theory all patients has access to general practitioners, these may lack training or confidence to screen for retinopathy. Hospital based or community optometrists using direct ophthalmoscopy or slit lamps and technicians performing fundus photography are alternatives which may be more effective. Further studies are required to examine the effectiveness of optometry screening. Initial studies using fundus photography raised concerns about the sensitivity of the technique, but these have been partially addressed by improvements in methodology and technology. As well as technicological effectiveness, factors affecting patient uptake of screening services still need to be addressed.