Incidence of sight-threatening retinopathy in Type 1 diabetes in a systematic screening programme.

AIM: To measure the cumulative incidence of any retinopathy, maculopathy and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR), and calculate optimal screening intervals by retinopathy grade at baseline for patients with Type 1 diabetes attending an established systematic retinal screening programme. METHODS: All patients with Type 1 diabetes registered with enrolled general practitioners, excluding only those attending an ophthalmologist, were studied if retinopathy data was available at baseline and at least one further screen event. Screening utilized non-stereoscopic 3-field mydriatic photography and modified Wisconsin grading. STDR was defined as moderate pre-proliferative retinopathy or greater and/or significant maculopathy in any eye. RESULTS: Patients (n=501) underwent 2742 screen events. Cumulative incidence of STDR in patients without baseline retinopathy was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0-0.9) at 1 year, rising to 3.9% (1.4-5.4) at 5 years. Rates of progression to STDR in patients with background and mild pre-proliferative retinopathy at 1 year were 3.6% (0.5-6.6) and 13.5% (4.2-22.7), respectively. Progression to STDR was greater in patients with a higher grade of baseline retinopathy (P=0.001) or a longer disease duration (P=0.003). For a 95% likelihood of remaining free of STDR, mean screening intervals by baseline status were: no retinopathy 5.7 (95% CI 3.5-7.6) years, background 1.3 (0.4-2.0) years and mild pre-proliferative 0.4 (0-0.8) years. CONCLUSIONS: Screening at 2-3 year intervals, rather than annually, for patients without retinopathy in Type 1 diabetes is feasible because of the low risk of progression to STDR, and may result in significant cost savings for a screening programme. Patients with higher grades of retinopathy require screening at least annually or more frequent.     

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

AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.     

Screening coverage for diabetic retinopathy using a three-field digital non-mydriatic fundus camera

AIMS: Guidelines for regular screening of diabetic retinopathy (DR) have been published in the Spanish and European literature since 1992, but screening for DR is still in its early stages in Spain. The aim of this paper is to estimate the prevalence of screening coverage for DR and prevalence of DR itself using three-field digital non-mydriatic fundus photography to determine whether these guidelines had been implemented. METHODS: Data on age, gender, diabetes and previous eye examinations were recorded on a specially designed questionnaire. Three 45 degrees digital images per eye were taken using a three-field digital non-mydriatic fundus camera with two photographic procedures (both eyes versus the eye with the poorer visual acuity). RESULTS: A total of 183 patients with diabetes participated. The median age and duration of diabetes was 63 years and 10 years, respectively. Only six patients (3.3%) could not be completely graded. Screening coverage for DR was 38.5% in patients with type 2 diabetes and a duration less than 5 years versus those with longer diabetes duration (P=0.007); 20.5% of these patients had DR. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for heightened awareness of the importance of screening for retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes and duration of diabetes under 5 years.     

Affluence is not related to delay in diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes as judged by the development of diabetic retinopathy.

AIM: To determine the relationship between affluence and the presence of diabetic retinopathy at time of diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Records of patients held by Southampton Retinal Screening Programme were examined. Patients (n = 1844) newly diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and subsequently receiving photographic retinal screening within 24 months were selected. Townsend scores for social deprivation were calculated and the patients with and without retinopathy at first screening were then compared. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the median Townsend score of those people with (-0.2, interquartile range (IQR) -3.7 to 3.8) and those without (-0.5, IQR -3.3 to 3.6) diabetic retinopathy at first screening after diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes (P = 0.6). CONCLUSION: The relative affluence of the area in which a person lives, as judged by postcode, does not appear to predict likelihood of diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes.     

Quality assurance in screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy.

AIMS: There is a need for continuous evaluation of screening services for diabetic retinopathy against agreed performance standards. We describe a quality assurance programme implemented in Newcastle in January 1999 and report on outcomes at 18 months. METHODS: Annual retinal screening is performed using combined retinal photography and direct ophthalmoscopy in two streams. Diabetologists perform screening in the Hospital Screening Programme, which serves patients whose diabetes is managed in specialist clinics, and trained retinal screeners perform screening in the District Screening Programme, which serves patients whose diabetes is managed in the community. Reference standard examination of dilated fundoscopy with a slit-lamp and condensing lens was performed by an ophthalmologist at periodic sessions on consecutive patients attending for screening. RESULTS: Six hundred and nine (6.4%) of 9468 patients screened underwent reference standard examination. The sensitivity and specificity of detection of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) was 82.5% and 98%, respectively, for the Hospital Screening Programme; 85.7% and 95.7%, respectively, for the District Screening Programme; and 83.3% and 96.8% for both services combined. One hundred and ten (18.1%) of 609 patients audited were referred to ophthalmology as a result of screening, and this led to 16 patients (2.6%) receiving laser photocoagulation for STDR. Reference standard examination identified a further four patients (0.7%) who required laser photocoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data indicate that satisfactory performance standards are being achieved. The National Service Framework for Diabetes requires that all units institute quality assurance for retinal screening, and we report the practical implementation of this in one district.     

Screening for diabetic retinopathy by non-mydriatic fundus camera in a Turkish population

To investigate the prevalence and risk factors of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in a diabetic population in Turkey using a non-mydriatic fundus camera. Patients presenting to our diabetes screening center were evaluated by fundus photography using a non-mydriatic fundus camera. Patients’ age at presentation, diabetes duration, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, and treatments used for diabetes were recorded. The data of 1797 female (55%) and 1470 male (45%) diabetes patients (total 3267) were analyzed. The prevalence of DR was 28.6%. DR stage was mild non-proliferative DR (NPDR) in 345 patients (12.9%), moderate NPDR in 300 (11.2%), severe NPDR in 108 (4%), and proliferative DR (PDR) in 12 patients (0.4%). Diabetic macular edema (DME) was detected 98 patients (3.7%). Fundus pictures were inadequate for assessment in 18% of cases (588 patient). Advanced age, longer diabetes duration, higher HbA1c level, and being treated for diabetes were found as risk factors for DR. In this study, we used a non-mydriatic fundus camera to determine the prevalence and risk factors of diabetic retinopathy in a Turkish population. In developing countries, the non-mydriatic fundus camera may be an appropriate way to detect DR in the early stages before it progresses to the proliferative stage.     

Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy: Expected vs reported prevalence of cases in the French population

Aim and methodsImpaired eyesight and vision loss due to retinopathy are among the most feared complications in diabetic patients. As the number of diabetic patients is predicted to increase, a corresponding increase in the number of patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) is also to be expected. This review is an update of the published literature pertaining to the epidemiology of DR.ResultsOver the past 20 years, eight population-based studies have been conducted in Western countries using photographic evidence of DR. Their results have consistently suggested that the prevalence of DR is close to 28.7%, whereas proliferative DR and macular oedema account for 9% and 17%, respectively, of all diagnosed cases. Various longitudinal studies indicate an annual incidence of DR of 2–6%. However, in France, the epidemiology of DR has mostly been investigated by observational studies. The recorded prevalence of DR, based on physicians’ reports, is estimated to be 10%, suggesting that DR is underdiagnosed in the French diabetic population. The discrepancy between the expected and reported prevalences of DR could be explained by the number of patients whose retinal status is unknown. DR screening with non-mydriatic fundus photography is effective for identifying early and advanced DR. Screening programmes carried out over the past 5 years in different regions of France indicate that 10–20% of diabetic patients with previously unknown retinal status have retinopathy.ConclusionFurther implementation of screening programmes is the key to improving DR diagnosis and preventing vision loss in the French diabetic population.     

Diagnostic accuracy of direct ophthalmoscopy for detection of diabetic retinopathy using fundus photographs as a reference standard

AimsTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of direct ophthalmoscopy for the presence and severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR) using fundus photographs as a reference standard.MethodsPatients with type 2 diabetes attending the outpatient department (OPD) of a tertiary care diabetes center, from October 2009 to March 2010 were recruited in the study after obtaining signed informed consent. Patients with type 1 diabetes and gestational diabetes or having eye problems were excluded. After checking visual acuity, direct ophthalmoscopy of each eye was done by diabetologist, followed by photography of two fields of retina by fundus camera. DR was graded by a retinal specialist, according to International Diabetic Retinopathy Disease Severity Scale. According to severity, patients with DR were grouped into non-sight threatening diabetic retinopathy (NSTDR) and sight threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR). Sensitivity and specificity of direct ophthalmoscopy for detection of any retinopathy, NSTDR and STDR was calculated.ResultsA total of 728 eyes were examined by direct ophthalmoscopy as well as fundus photography. Sensitivity (95% CI) of direct ophthalmoscopy for any retinopathy, NSTDR and STDR was found to be 55.67% (50.58–60.78), 37.63% (32.67–42.59) and 68.25% (63.48–73.02) respectively. Whereas, specificity of direct ophthalmoscopy was found to be 76.78% (72.45–81.11), 71.27% (CI: 66.63–75.91) and 90.0% (86.93–93.07) for any retinopathy, NSTDR and STDR respectively.ConclusionThe sensitivity and specificity of direct ophthalmoscopy performed by the diabetologist for the presence and severity of DR was lower compared to the recommended level of sensitivity and specificity of a screening test of DR.     

Renal and retinal microangiopathy after 15 years of follow-up study in a sample of Type 1 diabetes mellitus patients

PURPOSE: In the present study, the objective is to determine the epidemiological risk factors in the appearance of diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy in 112 Type 1 diabetic patients after 15 years. METHODS: A 15-year follow-up study was done in a cohort of 112 consecutive Type 1 (IDDM) diabetes mellitus patients without diabetic retinopathy or nephropathy at enrolment in 1990. We studied the incidence of diabetic retinopathy and/or microalbuminuria. The epidemiological risk factors included in the study were gender, diabetes duration, HbA(1c) levels, arterial hypertension, levels of triglycerides and fractions of cholesterol (HDL-cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol). RESULTS: The incidence of diabetic retinopathy was 55.40% at the end of study; the risk factors associated were duration of diabetes mellitus (P<.001), high levels of HbA(1c) (P=.009), presence of arterial hypertension (P=.007) and high levels of LDL-cholesterol (P=.002). The incidence of microalbuminuria was 41.07% and that of overt nephropathy, 19.60%; the risk factors associated were high levels of HbA(1c) (P<.001) and presence of arterial hypertension (P=.023). At the end of study, four groups of patients were formed: patients without microalbuminuria or retinopathy, patients with microalbuminuria only, patients with retinopathy only and patients with retinopathy and microalbuminuria. From the results of the discriminate analysis, we may assume that for the development of retinal lesions only, in the diabetes mellitus, the duration of the disease, the high levels of HbA(1c) and the arterial hypertension are most important, and for the development of renal and retinal lesion simultaneously, the important factor is poor control of glycemia measured by levels of HbA(1c) and arterial hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, microalbuminuria correlated well with severe forms of diabetic retinopathy, and at the end of the study, two groups of patients had been configured: the first group had developed only diabetic retinopathy, and the second, their patients with diabetic retinopathy together with renal lesion (microalbuminuria). For the first group, the duration of diabetes mellitus was the most important risk factor, and for the second group, the levels of HbA(1c) and blood pressure were the most important.     

Screening programme for microvascular complications and hypertension in a community diabetic population.

The role of a community-based screening programme for microvascular complications of diabetes and hypertension was evaluated in the semi-rural town of Trowbridge (population 31,000). Of 405 diabetic patients identified (prevalence 1.31%), 358 (88%) attended for screening, 94 (26%) of whom were under hospital review for diabetes. In only 136 patients (38%) were all aspects of diabetes care found to be satisfactory. The remaining 222 patients included 162 patients with poor metabolic control (HbA1 greater than or equal to 12%), 118 who were hypertensive at screening, 13 with previously undiagnosed diabetic nephropathy, and 29 with undiagnosed potentially sight-threatening retinopathy. Overall standards of diabetes care in this community population appear inadequate, and might be improved by introduction of a simple screening programme for diabetic complications.     

Sensitivity and specificity of digital retinal imaging for screening diabetic retinopathy.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of a non-mydriatic digital camera (45 degrees -30 degrees photographs) compared with the reference method for screening diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: Type 1 and 2 diabetic patients (n = 773; 1546 eyes) underwent screening for diabetic retinopathy in a prospective observational study. Hospital-based non-mydriatic digital retinal imaging by a consultant specialist in retinal diseases was compared with slit-lamp biomicroscopy and indirect ophthalmoscopy through dilated pupils, as a gold standard, previously performed in a community health centre by another consultant specialist in retinal diseases. The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of screening methods and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy. RESULTS: The prevalence of any form of diabetic retinopathy was 42.4% (n = 328); the prevalence of sight-threatening including macular oedema and proliferative retinopathy was 9.6% (n = 74). Sensitivity of detection of any diabetic retinopathy by digital imaging was 92% (95% confidence interval 90, 94). Specificity of detection of any diabetic retinopathy was 96% (95, 98). The predictive value of the negative tests was 94% and of a positive test 95%. For sight-threatening retinopathy digital imaging had a sensitivity of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: A high sensitivity and specificity are essential for an effective screening programme. These results confirm digital retinal imaging with a non-mydriatic camera as an effective option in community-based screening programmes for diabetic retinopathy.     

Screening for diabetic retinopathy in South Africa with 60° retinal colour photography

Objectives. Comparison of 60° mydriatic retinal photography, in screening for diabetic retinopathy, with diabetes clinic doctors, formal ophthalmological assessment, and with one or two 45° fields.
Design. Consecutive subjects screened by clinicians and photography, and selected eyes evaluated by an ophthalmologist. Randomized photographs assessed through one or two 45° fields (by masking the slides), and at 60°.
Setting. The first 663 patients attending for routine clinic visits and screened for retinopathy.
Main outcome measures. The relative diagnostic sensitivity of screening methods, the utility of screening one eye only, and the costs of photographic screening.
Results. Compared to an ophthalmologist's assessment, retinal photography had a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 89% for any retinopathy, and 100 and 75%, respectively, for severe retinopathy. Photography detected 28% more retinopathy (16% severe) than the clinicians. Compared to a 60° field, one 45° field missed 31%, and 2×45° fields 11% of retinopathy. Of 57 patients with retinopathy meeting referral criteria, 31 pairs of eyes had substantially discordant scores. The cost of diagnosis in a patient requiring referral to ophthalmologist was about US$37.00.
Conclusions. 60° retinal photography compares well with an ophthalmologists screening, and is better than clinical and one to two 45° field assessments. Both retinae should be screened. This method is cost-effective in our hands.     

Short report: suboptimal diabetes care in high‐risk diabetic patients attending a specialist retina clinic

Aims Individuals with diabetic retinopathy (DR) represent a high‐risk group who would benefit from intensive metabolic control and risk factor management. This brief report examines quality of care among diabetic patients attending a tertiary retinal clinic. Methods A cross‐sectional survey, notes review, and slit‐lamp examination was conducted in 139 diabetic patients attending a specialist retinal clinic to assess the quality of comprehensive diabetes care. DR was graded according to the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale. Results The prevalence of non‐proliferative DR (NPDR) and proliferative DR (PDR) was 39.6 and 35.2%, respectively. The prevalence of microalbuminuria in patients with no DR, NPDR and PDR was 32, 54.1 and 68.8%, respectively. Glycaemic control was suboptimal (mean HbA_1c 8.0 ± 1.8%) and 15.8% were current smokers. Drugs affecting the renin–angiotensin system were used by only 61.9% of patients with both DR and microalbuminuria, and aspirin by only 35.3%. Conclusions These data suggest that diabetes care in this high‐risk population with established microvascular complications was suboptimal. Specialist clinics dealing with diabetic complications may be a setting where quality improvement strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality should be focused.     

Trends in yield and effects of screening intervals during 17 years of a large UK community‐based diabetic retinopathy screening programme

Aims To describe changes in risk profiles and yield in a screening programme and to investigate relationships between retinopathy prevalence, screening interval and risk factors. Methods We analysed a population of predominantly Type 2 diabetic patients, managed in general practice, and screened between 1990 and 2006, with up to 17 years’ follow‐up and up to 14 screening episodes each. We investigated associations between referable or sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR), screening interval and frequency of repeated screening, whilst adjusting for age, duration and treatment of diabetes, hypertension treatment and period. Results Of 63 622 screening episodes among 20 788 people, 16 094 (25%) identified any retinopathy, 3136 (4.9%) identified referable retinopathy and 384 (0.60%) identified STDR. The prevalence of screening‐detected STDR decreased by 91%, from 1.7% in 1991–1993 to 0.16% in 2006. The prevalence of referable retinopathy increased from 2.0% in 1991–1993 to 6.7% in 1998–2001, then decreased to 4.7% in 2006. Compared with screening intervals of 12–18 months, screening intervals of 19–24 months were not associated with increased risk of referable retinopathy [adjusted odds ratio 0.93, 94% confidence interval (CI) 0.82–1.05], but screening intervals of more than 24 months were associated with increased risk (odds ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.41–1.75). Screening intervals of < 12 months were associated with high risks of referable retinopathy and STDR. Conclusions Over time the risk of late diagnosis of STDR decreased, possibly attributable to earlier diagnosis of less severe retinopathy, decreasing risk factors and systematic screening. Screening intervals of up to 24 months should be considered for lower risk patients.     

Retinopathy in latent autoimmune diabetes of adults: the Fremantle Diabetes Study.

AIMS: To determine the prevalence of retinopathy and its associations in patients diagnosed clinically with Type 2 diabetes and serum antibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA) from a community-based sample. METHODS: In a case-control design, 24 GADA-positive Type 2 patients from the Fremantle Diabetes Study (FDS) cohort were recruited and matched as closely as possible for age, sex and diabetes duration with 72 GADA-negative Type 2 patients from the FDS. Each patient had a detailed clinical and biochemical assessment including slit lamp biomicroscopy and colour fundus photography with Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (WESDR) grading. RESULTS: The GADA-positive patients had a significantly higher HbA1c (median (interquartile range); 8.4 (7.3, 9.6)%) than those who were GADA-negative (7.2 (6.5, 8.1)%: P = 0.002). The overall prevalence of retinopathy amongst the 96 subjects was 26.0%. The majority (92%) of the retinopathy detected was mild and non-proliferative. GADA-positive patients had double the retinopathy prevalence of the GADA-negative group (41.7% vs. 20.8%; P = 0.044). In a logistic regression model, diabetes duration, HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and current smoking were each significantly and independently predictive of retinopathy (P < 0.025), but GADA status was not. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that GADA-positive patients have an increased prevalence of retinopathy compared with GADA-negative controls with Type 2 diabetes from an urban Australian community. This increased prevalence is due mainly to relatively poor glycaemic control in the GADA-positive group.     

Endothelial dysfunction and low-grade inflammation and the progression of retinopathy in Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To study whether microalbuminuria, endothelial dysfunction and low-grade inflammation are associated with the presence and progression of diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: Patients with Type 2 diabetes (n = 328) attending a diabetes clinic were followed for 10 years and examined annually during the last 7 years. Retinopathy was assessed after pupillary dilatation by direct ophthalmoscopy (baseline) and two-field 60 degrees fundus photography (follow-up). Urinary albumin excretion, and markers of endothelial function (von Willebrand factor, tissue-type plasminogen activator, soluble E-selectin (sE-selectin), and soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule 1) and inflammatory activity (C-reactive protein and fibrinogen) were determined. RESULTS: The prevalence of retinopathy was 33.8%. The median diabetes duration at baseline was 7 years (interquartile range 2-12 years). The highest tertiles of baseline urinary albumin excretion and glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) were associated with prevalent retinopathy: odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.80 (1.44-5.46) and 2.19 (1.11-4.32), respectively. Progression of retinopathy occurred in 188 patients. The second and third tertiles of baseline sE-selectin were associated with progression of retinopathy [1.44 (1.04-2.01) and 1.61 (1.19-2.18)] but not independently of HbA(1c). None of the other markers was significantly associated with the presence or progression of retinopathy. High baseline HbA(1c) was significantly associated with progression of retinopathy: 1.65 (1.21-2.25). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with Type 2 diabetes who attended a diabetes clinic, there was some evidence for a role of endothelial dysfunction in the progression of retinopathy. We could not demonstrate a role for low-grade inflammation. Our study emphasizes the importance of glycaemic control in the development and progression of retinopathy.     

Retinopathy Screening in Type 2 Diabetes: Reliability of Wide Angle Fundus Photography

The purpose of the study was to assess the reliability of mydriatic 60° fundus photography in a retinopathy screening programme for Type 2 diabetic patients in a primary health care setting. In 323 eligible consecutive Type 2 diabetic patients above 40 years of age, attending a regional shared care diabetes project, mydriatic wide angle fundus photography was compared with standardized fundoscopy in dilated pupils as the recommended test for the detection of diabetic retinopathy. Fundus photography included two black and white transparencies per eye visualizing the central and nasal retinal field. Fundoscopy findings and pictures were scored according to modified Wisconsin criteria. Fundoscopy revealed in 95/646 eyes (14.7 %) some degree of diabetic retinopathy. Sensitivity and specificity of fundus photography (omitting ungradable transparencies) were 97 % for the diagnosis of any diabetic retinopathy (DRP). All patients with moderate and severe DRP (Wisconsin grade 3 and worse) according to fundoscopy were detected by fundus photography. In conclusion, mydriatic wide angle 60° fundus photography, making two pictures per eye, can be applied effectively and reliably in the detection of diabetic retinopathy in patients with Type 2 diabetes.     

An assessment of the coverage of a district-wide diabetic retinopathy screening service.

AIMS: To assess the coverage of the diabetes retinopathy screening service (DRSS) in North Staffordshire, to identify patient characteristies associated with non-attendance and to assess the proportion of patients with diabetic retinopathy who achieved glycaemic and blood pressure (BP) control targets. METHODS: Data for all patients who underwent annual retinal screening between 1 May 2000 and 30 April 2001 were obtained from the North Staffordshire Diabetes Register. Age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, type and duration of diabetes were compared between patients who underwent eye screening and those who did not. Frequencies of patients who achieved glycaemic and BP targets in these groups of patients were compared to the remaining patients. RESULTS: 5646 of the 11682 (48%) patients on the diabetes register underwent retinal screening during the year. Patients with Type 2 diabetes, older patients, patients belonging to ethnic minorities and those wholly managed in primary care were less likely to attend for eye screening (P < 0.05 for all groups) with ethnic minority or primary care management demonstrating independent influence (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients with retinopathy achieving HbA1c and systolic BP targets was significantly lower than in their unaffected counterparts (chi2 = 63, P < 0.001 and chi2 = 71, P < 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of the DRSS in North Staffordshire is low and might be improved by targeting specific patient groups. Glycaemic control and systolic BP control needs to be improved in patients with diabetic retinopathy.     

Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Cataract in Adult Patients With Type 1 And Type 2 Diabetes in Russia

AIM: The aim of the study was to identify the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic cataract (DC) in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients within the Russian Federation. Also, the stage of DR at the time of its identification and the proportion of new cases diagnosed with DR or DC were to be determined. METHODS: A random sample of 7,186 adult patients with diabetes was screened for DR and DC using fundoscopy and fundus photography. Levels of HbA1c, total cholesterol, triglycerides, creatinine and urinary albumin excretion rate were assessed. RESULTS: In diabetic patients, the prevalence of DR and DC was 45.9% and 30.6%, respectively. These complications appeared significantly more frequently in patients with type 1 diabetes than in type 2 diabetes. The prevalence of background, preproliferative and proliferative DR among diabetic patients was 28.1%, 8.1%, and 6.7%, respectively. Patients with DR were older, had a longer duration of diabetes, higher HbA1c, elevated plasma total cholesterol, increased triglicerides, and higher systolic BP, compared with patients without DR. Microalbuminuria and proteinuria were more prevalent among patients with DR compared with non-DR patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that diabetic retinopathy and cataract are wide-spread complications among diabetic patients in Russia. However, the disease course is more aggressive and accelerated in patients with type 1 diabetes than in those having type 2 diabetes. Therefore, it is important to prevent DR by identifying diabetes and signs of retinopathy at the earliest possible stage of progression for timely and adequate retina laser coagulation or surgical treatment, compensation of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, and normalization of blood glucose and pressure.     

Diabetic retinopathy screening with non-mydriatic retinography by general practitioners: 2-year results

AimsTo ascertain in real practice the diagnosis rate of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients considered to have positive screening test by general practitioners (GPs) and what are the reasons for the false positive diagnosis.MethodsFour GPs previously instructed in the interpretation of retinal photographs evaluated the digital retinography images of patients with diabetes obtained during a 2-year period. When the images were considered normal, a new appointment was scheduled for 1 year later and a report was emailed to the referring physician. Patients with any sign of DR or other suspicious retinal alterations and those whose images were considered difficult or impossible to assess were referred to an ophthalmologist.ResultsA total of 2750 patients were referred for screening. The images of 2036 (74%) patients were considered normal, and the images of 714 (26%) patients were sent to ophthalmologists. Among the referred patients, 392 (55%) did not have DR, 244 (34%) had DR, and 78 (11%) had unreadable images. The retinal images of 240 patients whose fundi were considered normal were read again by ophthalmologists to evaluate false negatives. Of them, 16 patients (7%) had DR but only two patients (1%) had treatable DR.ConclusionsAfter adequate training, GPs can screen for DR with a high level of accuracy using non-mydriatic retinography. There is a need to strengthen the training of GPs in order to recognize non-visual threatening abnormalities.