Attendance in a national screening program for diabetic retinopathy:a population-based study of 205,970 patients

AIMS: A nationwide diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening program has been established in Denmark since 2013. We aimed to perform an evaluation of adherence to DR screenings and to examine whether non-adherence was correlated to DR progression. METHODS: The population consisted of a register-based cohort, who participated in the screening program from 2013 to 2018. We analyzed age, gender, marital status, DR level (International Clinical DR severity scale, none, mild-, moderate-, severe non-proliferative DR (NPDR) and proliferative DR (PDR)), comorbidities and socioeconomic factors. The attendance pattern of patients was grouped as either timely (no delays > 33%), delayed (delays > 33%) or one-time attendance (unexplained). RESULTS: We included 205,970 patients with 591,136 screenings. Rates of timely, delayed and one-time attendance were 53.0%, 35.5% and 11.5%, respectively. DR level at baseline was associated with delays (mild-, moderate-, severe NPDR and PDR) and one-time attendance (moderate-, severe NPDR and PDR) with relative risk ratios (RRR) of 1.68, 2.27, 3.14, 2.44 and 1.18, 2.07, 1.26, respectively (P < 0.05). Delays at previous screenings were associated with progression to severe NPDR or PDR (hazard ratio (HR) 2.27, 6.25 and 12.84 for 1, 2 and 3+ delays, respectively). Any given delay doubled the risk of progression (HR 2.28). CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort of 205,970 patients, almost half of the patients attended DR screening later than scheduled or dropped out after first screening episode. This was, in particular, true for patients with any levels of DR at baseline. DR progression in patients with delayed attendance, increased with the number of missed appointments

Diabetic retinopathy is a predictor of chronic respiratory failure: A nationwide register-based cohort study

Purpose: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a hypoxic retinal disease, but so far, the association with systemic hypoxia is poorly understood. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between DR and chronic respiratory failure (CRF) in a national cohort. Design: Cross-sectional and 5-year longitudinal register-based cohort study. Methods: Between 2013 and 2018, we included patients with diabetes from the Danish Registry of Diabetic Retinopathy, who were each age and sex matched with five controls without diabetes. At index date, the prevalence of CRF was compared between cases and controls, and the longitudinal relationship between DR and CRF was assessed in a five-year follow-up. Results: At baseline, we identified 1,980 and 9,990 patients with CRF among 205,970 cases and 1,003,170 controls. The prevalence of CRF was higher among cases than controls (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.65–1.86), but no difference between cases with and without DR was found.During follow-up, we identified 1,726 and 5,177 events of CRF among cases and controls, respectively. The incidence of CRF was higher among both cases with and without DR compared to controls (DR level 0: HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.16–1.33, DR level 1–4: HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.63–2.12), and higher among cases with DR compared to cases without DR (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.38–1.72). Conclusion: In this study based on nationwide data, we found an increased risk of present and incident CRF in patients with diabetes with or without DR, and we identified DR as a predictor of future CRF

Diabetic Retinopathy Predicts Risk of Alzheimer's Disease: A Danish Registry-Based Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Retinal neurodegeneration is evident in early diabetic retinopathy (DR) which may be associated with other neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: To investigate diabetes and DR as a risk marker of present and incident AD. METHODS: A register-based cohort study was performed. We included 134,327 persons with diabetes above 60 years of age, who had attended DR screening, and 651,936 age- and gender-matched persons without diabetes. RESULTS: At baseline, the prevalence of AD was 0.7% and 1.3% among patients with and without diabetes, respectively. In a multivariable regression model, patients with diabetes were less likely to have AD at baseline (adjusted OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.59–0.68). During follow-up, incident AD was registered for 1473 (0.35%) and 6,899 (0.34%) persons with and without diabetes, respectively. Compared to persons without diabetes, persons with diabetes and no DR had a lower risk to develop AD (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81–0.93), while persons with diabetes and DR had higher risk of AD (adjusted HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08–1.43). When persons with diabetes and no DR were used as references, a higher risk of incident AD was observed in persons with DR (adjusted HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18–1.53). CONCLUSION: Individuals with diabetes without DR were less likely to develop AD compared to persons without diabetes. However, individuals with DR had a 34% higher risk of incident AD, which raise the question whether screening for cognitive impairment should be done among individuals with DR