Risk of diabetic retinopathy at first screen in children at 12 and 13 years of age

AIMS: \ud \ud To investigate the relationships between age at diagnosis of diabetes, age at diabetic eye screening and severity of diabetic retinopathy at first and subsequent screenings in children aged 12 or 13 years.\ud \ud METHODS: \ud \ud Data were extracted from four English screening programmes and from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish programmes on all children with diabetes invited for their first and subsequent screening episodes from the age of 12 years. Retinopathy levels at first and subsequent screens, time from diagnosis of diabetes to first screening and age at diagnosis in years were calculated.\ud \ud RESULTS: \ud \ud Data were available for 2125 children with diabetes screened for the first time at age 12 or 13 years. In those diagnosed with diabetes at 2 years of age or less, the proportion with retinopathy in one or both eyes was 20% and 11%, respectively, decreasing to 8% and 2% in those diagnosed between 2 and 12 years (P < 0.0001). Only three children (aged 8, 10 and 11 years at diagnosis of diabetes) had images graded with referable retinopathy and, of these, two had non-referable diabetic retinopathy at all subsequent screenings. Of 1703 children with subsequent images, 25 were graded with referable diabetic retinopathy over a mean follow-up of 3.1 years, an incidence rate of 4.7 (95% confidence interval, 3.1-7.0) per 1000 per year.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS: \ud \ud In this large cohort of children, the low prevalence and incidence rates of referable diabetic retinopathy suggest that screening earlier than age 12 is not necessary

25th RCOphth Congress, President's Session paper:25 years of progress in medical retina

The quarter century since the foundation of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists has coincided with immense change in the subspecialty of medical retina, which has moved from being the province of a few dedicated enthusiasts to being an integral, core part of ophthalmology in every eye department. In age-related macular degeneration, there has been a move away from targeted, destructive laser therapy, dependent on fluorescein angiography to intravitreal injection therapy of anti-growth factor agents, largely guided by optical coherence tomography. As a result of these changes, ophthalmologists have witnessed a marked improvement in visual outcomes for their patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), while at the same time developing and enacting entirely novel ways of delivering care. In the field of diabetic retinopathy, this period also saw advances in laser technology and a move away from highly destructive laser photocoagulation treatment to gentler retinal laser treatments. The introduction of intravitreal therapies, both steroids and anti-growth factor agents, has further advanced the treatment of diabetic macular oedema. This era has also seen in the United Kingdom the introduction of a coordinated national diabetic retinopathy screening programme, which offers an increasing hope that the burden of blindness from diabetic eye disease can be lessened. Exciting future advances in retinal imaging, genetics, and pharmacology will allow us to further improve outcomes for our patients and for ophthalmologists specialising in medical retina, the future looks very exciting but increasingly busy

Metformin in adults with type 1 diabetes:Design and methods of REducing with MetfOrmin Vascular Adverse Lesions (REMOVAL): An international multicentre trial

Introduction: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is a major cause of reduced life expectancy in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Intensive insulin therapy prevents CV complications but is constrained by hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Adjunct metformin reduces insulin dose requirement and stabilises weight but there are no data on its cardiovascular effects. Aims: We have initiated an international double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (REMOVAL: REducing with MetfOrmin Vascular Adverse Lesions in type 1 diabetes) to examine whether metformin reduces progression of atherosclerosis in adults with T1D. Individuals ≥40 years of age with T1D for ≥5 years are eligible if they have ≥3 of 10 specified CV risk factors. The enrolment target is 500 participants in 17 international centres. Materials and Methods: After 12 weeks single-blind placebo-controlled run-in, participants with ≥70 % adherence are randomized to metformin or matching placebo for three years with insulin titrated towards HbA1c 7.0% (53 mmol/mol)]. The primary endpoint is progression of averaged mean far wall common carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) measured by ultrasonography at baseline, 12, 24 and 36 months. This design provides 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.0167 mm in cIMT progression between treatment arms (α = 0.05), assuming up to 20% withdraw or discontinue treatment. Other endpoints include HbA1c, weight, LDL cholesterol, insulin requirement, progression of retinopathy, endothelial function and frequency of hypoglycaemia. Results and Conclusions: REMOVAL is the largest clinical trial of adjunct metformin therapy in T1D to date and will provide clinically meaningful information on its potential to impact CV disease and other complications

An observational study to assess if automated diabetic retinopathy image assessment software can replace one or more steps of manual imaging grading and to determine their cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy screening in England involves labour-intensive manual grading of retinal images. Automated retinal image analysis systems (ARIASs) may offer an alternative to manual grading. OBJECTIVES: To determine the screening performance and cost-effectiveness of ARIASs to replace level 1 human graders or pre-screen with ARIASs in the NHS diabetic eye screening programme (DESP). To examine technical issues associated with implementation. DESIGN: Observational retrospective measurement comparison study with a real-time evaluation of technical issues and a decision-analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness. SETTING: A NHS DESP. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive diabetic patients who attended a routine annual NHS DESP visit. INTERVENTIONS: Retinal images were manually graded and processed by three ARIASs: iGradingM (version 1.1; originally Medalytix Group Ltd, Manchester, UK, but purchased by Digital Healthcare, Cambridge, UK, at the initiation of the study, purchased in turn by EMIS Health, Leeds, UK, after conclusion of the study), Retmarker (version 0.8.2, Retmarker Ltd, Coimbra, Portugal) and EyeArt (Eyenuk Inc., Woodland Hills, CA, USA). The final manual grade was used as the reference standard. Arbitration on a subset of discrepancies between manual grading and the use of an ARIAS by a reading centre masked to all grading was used to create a reference standard manual grade modified by arbitration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate and likelihood ratios) and diagnostic accuracy [95% confidence intervals (CIs)] of ARIASs. A secondary analysis explored the influence of camera type and patients' ethnicity, age and sex on screening performance. Economic analysis estimated the cost per appropriate screening outcome identified. RESULTS: A total of 20,258 patients with 102,856 images were entered into the study. The sensitivity point estimates of the ARIASs were as follows: EyeArt 94.7% (95% CI 94.2% to 95.2%) for any retinopathy, 93.8% (95% CI 92.9% to 94.6%) for referable retinopathy and 99.6% (95% CI 97.0% to 99.9%) for proliferative retinopathy; and Retmarker 73.0% (95% CI 72.0% to 74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (95% CI 83.6% to 86.2%) for referable retinopathy and 97.9% (95% CI 94.9 to 99.1%) for proliferative retinopathy. iGradingM classified all images as either 'disease' or 'ungradable', limiting further iGradingM analysis. The sensitivity and false-positive rates for EyeArt were not affected by ethnicity, sex or camera type but sensitivity declined marginally with increasing patient age. The screening performance of Retmarker appeared to vary with patient's age, ethnicity and camera type. Both EyeArt and Retmarker were cost saving relative to manual grading either as a replacement for level 1 human grading or used prior to level 1 human grading, although the latter was less cost-effective. A threshold analysis testing the highest ARIAS cost per patient before which ARIASs became more expensive per appropriate outcome than human grading, when used to replace level 1 grader, was Retmarker £3.82 and EyeArt £2.71 per patient. LIMITATIONS: The non-randomised study design limited the health economic analysis but the same retinal images were processed by all ARIASs in this measurement comparison study. CONCLUSIONS: Retmarker and EyeArt achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy and false-positive rates (compared with human graders as reference standard) and appear to be cost-effective alternatives to a purely manual grading approach. Future work is required to develop technical specifications to optimise deployment and address potential governance issues. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, a Fight for Sight Grant (Hirsch grant award) and the Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology

The combination of intravitreal triamcinolone and phacoemulsification surgery in patients with diabeticfoveal oedema and cataract

BACKGROUND: The management of diabetic patients with refractory macular oedema or patients with no adequate pre-operative view to administer laser treatment provide a challenge to the ophthalmologist. We wished to assess the use, safety and effect of intravitreal triamcinolone injection at the time of cataract surgery in patients with diabetic foveal oedema and sight limiting lens opacities. METHOD: This was a longitudinal non-randomised prospective pilot study in 18 eyes (12 patients). All patients had visually significant lens opacities and either persistent diabetic foveal oedema unresponsive to laser treatment-group A, or foveal oedema with no adequate pre-operative view for laser treatment- group B. The cataract surgery was carried out under full aseptic technique using a self-sealing temporal incision and a foldable acrylic lens. Intravitreal triamcinolone was given infratemporally pars plana at the completion of the cataract surgery. The patients were reviewed at day 5, 2 weeks, 2 months and then every 3 months as required. The Wilcoxin matched-pairs test was used to assess the significance of the improvement in visual acuity at 2 months. RESULTS: Twelve patients with a total of 18 eyes were included in the study. There were 10 patients (15 eyes) in group A and 3 patients (3 eyes) in group B. Preoperatively 16 of the 18 eyes had a visual acuity of 6/24 or worse. Postoperatively 83% of patients had completely dry foveae at 2 weeks. Best-corrected visual acuities at two months review ranged from 6/6 to CF with 9 eyes (50%) achieving 6/12 or better (7 eyes (47%) in group A and 2 eyes (67%) in group B). Three eyes had no recorded improvement in visual acuity, but no eyes had deterioration in acuity. The improvement in visual acuity was significant at p = 0.001. There were no significant sight threatening complications. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal triamcinolone has been shown to lead to an improvement in macular oedema and visual improvement in diabetic patients not undergoing cataract surgery but has not, to our knowledge, been previously used in a study like this one. We suggest that intravitreal injection at the time of cataract surgery could be carried out safely with encouraging visual outcomes in patients with diabetic foveal oedema and cataract