Search

Purpose The increasing diabetes prevalence and advent of new treatments for its major visual-threatening complications (diabetic macular edema [DME] and proliferative diabetic retinopathy [PDR]), which require frequent life-long follow-up, have increased hospital demands markedly. Subsequent delays in patient's evaluation and treatment are causing sight loss. Strategies to increase capacity are needed urgently. The retinopathy (EMERALD) study tested diagnostic accuracy, acceptability, and costs of a new health care pathway for people with previously treated DME or PDR. Design Prospective, multicenter, case-referent, cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study undertaken in 13 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants Adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes previously successfully treated DME or PDR who, at the time of enrollment, had active or inactive disease. Methods A new health care pathway entailing multimodal imaging (spectral-domain OCT for DME, and 7-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] and ultra-widefield [UWF] fundus images for PDR) interpreted by trained nonmedical staff (ophthalmic graders) to detect reactivation of disease was compared with the current standard care (face-to-face examination by ophthalmologists). Main Outcome Measures Primary outcome: sensitivity of the new pathway. Secondary outcomes: specificity; agreement between pathways; costs; acceptability; proportions requiring subsequent ophthalmologist assessment, unable to undergo imaging, and with inadequate images or indeterminate findings. Results The new pathway showed sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%–99%) and specificity of 31% (95% CI, 23%–40%) to detect DME. For PDR, sensitivity and specificity using 7-field ETDRS images (85% [95% CI, 77%–91%] and 48% [95% CI, 41%–56%], respectively) or UWF images (83% [95% CI, 75%–89%] and 54% [95% CI, 46%–61%], respectively) were comparable. For detection of high-risk PDR, sensitivity and specificity were higher when using UWF images (87% [95% CI, 78%–93%] and 49% [95% CI, 42%–56%], respectively, for UWF versus 80% [95% CI, 69–88%] and 40% [95% CI, 34%–47%], respectively, for 7-field ETDRS images). Participants preferred ophthalmologists’ assessments; in their absence, they preferred immediate feedback by graders, maintaining periodic ophthalmologist evaluations. When compared with the current standard of care, the new pathway could save £1390 per 100 DME visits and between £461 and £1189 per 100 PDR visits. Conclusions The new pathway has acceptable sensitivity and would release resources. Users’ suggestions should guide implementation.

Determine clinical-effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML), compared with standard laser (SL), for diabetic macular edema (DME) with central retinal thickness (CRT)400μ.Pragmatic, multicenter, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomized, non-inferiority trial.Adults with400μ center-involved DME and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA)24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in one/both eyes.Randomisation 1:1 to 577nm SML or SL; retreatments were allowed. Rescue with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was permitted if10 ETDRS-letter-loss and/or CRT increased400μ.Primary: Mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 24 months (non-inferiority margin 5 ETDRS-letters). Secondary: mean change from baseline to month-24 in binocular BCVA; CRT and mean deviation (MD) of Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; percentage meeting driving standards; EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L), National Eye Institute-Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ25), and Vision and Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) scores; cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; adverse effects; number of laser and rescue treatments.DIAMONDS recruited fully (n=266); 87% SML and 86% SL had primary outcome data. Mean BCVA change from baseline to month-24 was -2.43 (Standard Deviation [SD] 8.20) and -0.45 (SD 6.72) in SML and SL, respectively. SML was deemed not only non-inferior but also equivalent to SL as the 95% confidence interval (CI) (-3.9 to -0.04) lay wholly within both upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 ETDRS-letters). There was no statistically significant difference in binocular BCVA (0.32 ETDRS letters; 95% CI -0.99, 1.64; p = 0.63), CRT (-0.64 microns; 95% CI -14.25, 12.98; p = 0.93), MD (0.39 dB; 95% CI -0.23, 1.02; p = 0.21), meeting driving standards (% point difference 1.6, 95% CI -25.3, 28.5; p=0.91), adverse effects (Risk Ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.06, 1.34; p=0.11), rescue treatments (% point difference -2.8, 95% CI -13.1, 7.5; p=0.59) or EQ-5D/VFQ-25/VisQoL scores. Number of laser treatments was higher in SML (0.48; 95% CI 0.18, 0.79; p = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no differences in costs or QALYs.SML was equivalent to SL, requiring slightly higher laser treatments.

Supplemental material available at www.aaojournal.org.; International audience; PURPOSE: Comparison of the efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ) 0.5 mg intravitreal injections plus panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus PRP alone in the regression of the neovascularization (NV) area in subjects with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (HR-PDR) over a 12-month period. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase II/III study. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-seven participants (aged >/=18 years) with type 1/2 diabetes and HR-PDR (mean age, 55.2 years; 37% were female). METHODS: Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive RBZ+PRP (n = 41) or PRP monotherapy (n = 46). The RBZ+PRP group received 3 monthly RBZ injections along with standard PRP. The PRP monotherapy group received standard PRP between day 1 and month 2; thereafter, re-treatments in both groups were at the investigators' discretion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was regression of NV total, on the disc (NVD) plus elsewhere (NVE), defined as any decrease in the area of NV from the baseline to month 12. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes from baseline to month 12, time to complete NV regression, recurrence of NV, macular retinal thickness changes from baseline to month 12, need for treatment for diabetic macular edema, need for vitrectomy because of occurrence of vitreous hemorrhage, tractional retinal detachment or other complications of DR, and adverse events (AEs) related to treatments. RESULTS: Seventy-seven participants (88.5%) completed the study. Overall baseline demographics were similar for both groups, except for age. At month 12, 92.7% of participants in the RBZ+PRP group presented NV total reduction versus 70.5% of the PRP monotherapy participants (P = 0.009). The number of participants with NVD and NVE reductions was higher with RBZ+PRP (93.3% and 91.4%, respectively) versus PRP (68.8% and 73.7%, respectively), significant only for NVE (P = 0.048). Complete NV total regression was observed in 43.9% in the RBZ+PRP group versus 25.0% in the PRP monotherapy group (P = 0.066). At month 12, the mean BCVA was 75.2 letters (20/32) in the RBZ+PRP group versus 69.2 letters (20/40) in the PRP monotherapy group (P = 0.104). In the RBZ+PRP group, the mean number of PRP treatments over month 12 was 3.5+/-1.3, whereas in the PRP monotherapy group, it was 4.6+/-1.5 (P = 0.001). No deaths or unexpected AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with RBZ+PRP was more effective than PRP monotherapy for NV regression in HR-PDR participants over 12 months.

Objective Superior conjunctival graft is commonly used in pterygium surgery, which may adversely affect the outcome of future filtration surgery. We retrospectively studied the success rate of inferior conjunctival autografting for primary pterygia in our unit. Design A noncomparative, retrospective, interventional case series. Participants Thirty eyes of 27 patients treated between August 1996 and February 2001 with primary pterygia. Intervention Excision of pterygium followed by conjunctival autograft harvested from the inferior bulbar conjunctiva. Surgeries were performed by an experienced surgeon (CL) in 23 patients and by trainees in the remaining four cases. Main outcome measures Recurrence of the pterygium and complications. Results Mean follow-up was 27 months (range, 8–53). Recurrence occurred in one eye (3.3%). This was a white female in her early fifties, with recurrence detected 3 months after the surgery. Conjunctival scarring at the donor site was observed in 11 eyes (36.66%). There was no symblepharon formation. There was no restriction of up gaze. Hemorrhage under the conjunctival graft developed in three eyes, corneal dellen near the limbus developed in four eyes, and epithelial inclusion cysts at the recipient site developed in two eyes. Conclusions Inferior conjunctival autografting is an effective technique with a low recurrence rate. This is a useful technique in cases in which it is not possible or desirable to use the superior conjunctiva as a donor source.