Ten-year incidence and assessment of safe screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy: the OPHDIAT study

A systematic review of diabetic retinopathy screening intervals

The current evidence on whether annual diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening intervals can be extended was reviewed. A systematic review protocol was followed (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022359590). Original longitudinal articles that specifically assessed DR screening intervals were in English and collected data after 2000 were included. Two reviewers independently conducted the search and reviewed the articles for quality and relevant information. The heterogeneity of the data meant that a meta-analysis was not appropriate. Twelve publications were included. Studies were of good quality and many used data from DR screening programs. Studies fit into three categories; those that assessed specific DR screening intervals, those that determined optimal DR screening intervals and those that developed/assessed DR screening risk equations. For those with type 2 diabetes, extending screening intervals to 3- to 4-yearly in those with no baseline DR appeared safe. DR risk equations considered clinical factors and allocated those at lower risk of DR progression screening intervals of up to five years. Those with baseline DR or type 1 diabetes appeared to have a higher risk of progression to STDR and needed more frequent screening. DR screening intervals can be extended to 3-5 yearly in certain circumstances. These include patients with type 2 diabetes and no current DR, and those who have optimal management of other risk factors such as glucose and blood pressure.

Epidemiology of Treated Diabetes Ocular Complications in France 2008-2018-The LANDSCAPE French Nationwide Study

AIM

LANDSCAPE aimed to estimate the annual incidence and prevalence of treated diabetic macular edema (DME) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) between 2008 and 2018.

METHODS

This French nationwide observational study used data from the French National Health Insurance Databases covering 99% of the French population. Data about healthcare consumption were used to identify adults treated with anti-VEGFs or dexamethasone implants (for DME) and with pan-retinal photocoagulation (for PDR). All French patients newly treated between 2008 and 2018 were included. Incidence and prevalence of treated DME and PDR were estimated for the age-matched general population and the population with diabetes in France. Sociodemographic characteristics and medical history were described in both populations.

RESULTS

We identified 53,584 treated DME patients and 127,273 treated PDR patients between 2008 and 2018, and 11,901 DME and 11,996 PDR new incident patients in 2018. The treated DME incidence in 2018 was 2.5 per 10,000 in the general population and 37.3 per 10,000 in the population with diabetes. Prevalence in 2018 was 9.5 and 143.7 per 10,000 in the respective populations. Treated PDR incidence in 2018 was 2.3 per 10,000 in the general population and 31.2 per 10,000 in the population with diabetes. Prevalence in 2018 was 19.9 and 270.3 per 10,000 in the respective populations. Incidence and prevalence were not age-dependent. Incidence of treated PDR incidence was relatively stable from 2008-2018. Incidence of treated DME incidence rose from 2012-2018, probably due to widening access to newly available treatments, such as anti-VEGFs.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide exhaustive nationwide data on the incidence and prevalence of treated diabetic ocular complications in France over a 10-year period.

Risk Factors for Progression to Referable Diabetic Eye Disease in People With Diabetes Mellitus in Auckland, New Zealand: A 12-Year Retrospective Cohort Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors for the development of any and referable diabetic eye disease in a multi-ethnic New Zealand population with diabetes mellitus attending a regional retinal screening service.

METHODS

Retrospective observational cohort study of people living with diabetes who attended the Auckland Regional Diabetic Retinal Screening Programme 2006-2018 inclusive (n = 41,786).

RESULTS

Any retinopathy/maculopathy was present at first screening for 48.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 45.8%-50.6%] / 37.8% (95% CI: 35.5%- 40.1%) of people with Type 1 and 25% (95% CI: 24.6%-25.4%) / 21.9% (95% CI: 21.5%-22.3%) with Type 2 diabetes. Referable retinopathy at baseline screening was 4.4% (95% CI: 3.6%-5.3%) and 1.6% (95% CI: 1.5%-1.7%) among people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus, respectively. After 4 years, cumulative incidence for referable retinopathy /referable maculopathy was 12/36 per 1000 people with Type 1 and 2.4/16 per 1000 people with Type 2 diabetes. Independent hazards for disease progression varied for the diabetes cohort types but baseline grade, duration of diabetes, and HbA1c were common to all.

CONCLUSIONS

Referable diabetic eye disease at the first screening and after 4 years of follow-up is uncommon. Lengthening of the screening intervals for people with no or mild diabetic eye disease at first screening assessment could be considered.

Prevalence, severity stages, and risk factors of diabetic retinopathy in 1464 adult patients with type 1 diabetes

PURPOSE

To determine the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and its risk factors in adult type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, all T1D patients followed in the University Center for Diabetes and its Complications of Lariboisière Hospital (Paris, France) between January 2017 and February 2019 were included. Ophthalmologic and systemic data were collected from electronic records. The association between DR (and each grade) and associated factors were estimated by univariate and multivariate analyses using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 1464 patients (46.2% of women, mean age: 42.2 ± 15.8 years) were included. The mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 7.8 ± 1.7% and the mean diabetes duration was 20.5 ± 13.5 years. DR prevalence was 50.1% (47.4-52.6) and the prevalence of mild, moderate, and severe non-proliferative DR and proliferative DR was 19.1%, 9.4%, 3.9%, and 17.6%, respectively. DR was significantly associated with male gender, an older age, former and current smoking status, a higher BMI, the presence of nephropathy and neuropathy, higher HBA1c, and longer diabetes duration. Patients with HbA1c > 10% had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 3.25 (1.77-6.01) of having DR compared to patients with HbA1c < 6.5%. Patients with a diabetes duration > 30 years had an adjusted OR of 24.87 (14.82-42.67) higher of having DR compared to patients with a diabetes duration < 10 years.

CONCLUSION

In this study, 50.1% of adult T1D patients had DR and 17.6% had proliferative DR. Diabetes duration and HbA1c were major risk factors.