Search

Background/aimsThe English Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) offers people living with diabetes (PLD) annual screening. Less frequent screening has been advocated among PLD without diabetic retinopathy (DR), but evidence for each ethnic group is limited. We examined the potential effect of biennial versus annual screening on the detection of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) among PLD without DR from a large urban multi-ethnic English DESP.MethodsPLD in North-East London DESP (January 2012 to December 2021) with no DR on two prior consecutive screening visits with up to 8 years of follow-up were examined. Annual STDR and PDR incidence rates, overall and by ethnicity, were quantified. Delays in identification of STDR and PDR events had 2-year screening intervals been used were determined.FindingsAmong 82 782 PLD (37% white, 36% South Asian, and 16% black people), there were 1788 incident STDR cases over mean (SD) 4.3 (2.4) years (STDR rate 0.51, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.55 per 100-person-years). STDR incidence rates per 100-person-years by ethnicity were 0.55 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.62) for South Asian, 0.34 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.40) for white, and 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.90) for black people. Biennial screening would have delayed diagnosis by 1 year for 56.3% (1007/1788) with STDR and 43.6% (45/103) with PDR. Standardised cumulative rates of delayed STDR per 100 000 persons for each ethnic group were 1904 (95% CI 1683 to 2154) for black people, 1276 (95% CI 1153 to 1412) for South Asian people, and 844 (95% CI 745 to 955) for white people.InterpretationBiennial screening would have delayed detection of some STDR and PDR by 1 year, especially among those of black ethnic origin, leading to healthcare inequalities.

BackgroundPhotographic diabetic retinopathy screening requires labour-intensive grading of retinal images by humans. Automated retinal image analysis software (ARIAS) could provide an alternative to human grading. We compare the performance of an ARIAS using true-colour, wide-field confocal scanning images and standard fundus images in the English National Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (NDESP) against human grading.MethodsCross-sectional study with consecutive recruitment of patients attending annual diabetic eye screening. Imaging with mydriasis was performed (two-field protocol) with the EIDON platform (CenterVue, Padua, Italy) and standard NDESP cameras. Human grading was carried out according to NDESP protocol. Images were processed by EyeArt V.2.1.0 (Eyenuk Inc, Woodland Hills, California). The reference standard for analysis was the human grade of standard NDESP images.ResultsWe included 1257 patients. Sensitivity estimates for retinopathy grades were: EIDON images; 92.27% (95% CI: 88.43% to 94.69%) for any retinopathy, 99% (95% CI: 95.35% to 100%) for vision-threatening retinopathy and 100% (95% CI: 61% to 100%) for proliferative retinopathy. For NDESP images: 92.26% (95% CI: 88.37% to 94.69%) for any retinopathy, 100% (95% CI: 99.53% to 100%) for vision-threatening retinopathy and 100% (95% CI: 61% to 100%) for proliferative retinopathy. One case of vision-threatening retinopathy (R1M1) was missed by the EyeArt when analysing the EIDON images, but identified by the human graders. The EyeArt identified all cases of vision-threatening retinopathy in the standard images.ConclusionEyeArt identified diabetic retinopathy in EIDON images with similar sensitivity to standard images in a large-scale screening programme, exceeding the sensitivity threshold recommended for a screening test. Further work to optimise the identification of ‘no retinopathy’ and to understand the differential lesion detection in the two imaging systems would enhance the use of these two innovative technologies in a diabetic retinopathy screening setting.

Background/aimsHuman grading of digital images from diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening programmes represents a significant challenge, due to the increasing prevalence of diabetes. We evaluate the performance of an automated artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to triage retinal images from the English Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) into test-positive/technical failure versus test-negative, using human grading following a standard national protocol as the reference standard.MethodsRetinal images from 30 405 consecutive screening episodes from three English DESPs were manually graded following a standard national protocol and by an automated process with machine learning enabled software, EyeArt v2.1. Screening performance (sensitivity, specificity) and diagnostic accuracy (95% CIs) were determined using human grades as the reference standard.ResultsSensitivity (95% CIs) of EyeArt was 95.7% (94.8% to 96.5%) for referable retinopathy (human graded ungradable, referable maculopathy, moderate-to-severe non-proliferative or proliferative). This comprises sensitivities of 98.3% (97.3% to 98.9%) for mild-to-moderate non-proliferative retinopathy with referable maculopathy, 100% (98.7%,100%) for moderate-to-severe non-proliferative retinopathy and 100% (97.9%,100%) for proliferative disease. EyeArt agreed with the human grade of no retinopathy (specificity) in 68% (67% to 69%), with a specificity of 54.0% (53.4% to 54.5%) when combined with non-referable retinopathy.ConclusionThe algorithm demonstrated safe levels of sensitivity for high-risk retinopathy in a real-world screening service, with specificity that could halve the workload for human graders. AI machine learning and deep learning algorithms such as this can provide clinically equivalent, rapid detection of retinopathy, particularly in settings where a trained workforce is unavailable or where large-scale and rapid results are needed.

BackgroundScreening of diabetic retinopathy (DR) reduces blindness by early identification of retinopathy. This study compares DR grades derived from a two-field imaging protocol from two imaging platforms, one providing a single 60-degree horizontal field of view (FOV) and the other, a standard 45-degree FOV.MethodsCross-sectional study which included 1257 diabetic patients aged ≥18 years attending their DR screening visit in the English National Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (NDESP). Patients with maculopathy (M1), preproliferative (R2) or proliferative DR (R3) were referred to an ophthalmologist. Patients with ungradable images (U) are examined in a slit-lamp biomicroscopy clinic. Image acquisition under mydriasis of two images per eye was carried out with the EIDON and with standard fundus cameras. Evaluation was performed by masked graders.ResultsAgreement after consensus with kappa statistic was 0.89 (quadratic weights (95% CI 0.87 to 0.92)) for NDESP severity grade, 0.88 (quadratic weights (95% CI 0.82 to 0.94)) for referable disease and 0.92 (linear weights (95% CI 0.88 to 0.95)) for maculopathy. The EIDON detected clinically relevant DR features outside the 45-degree fields in two patients (0.16%): one with intraretinal microvascular abnormalities (IRMAs) and one with neovascularisation. In eight patients (0.64%), the EIDON allowed DR feature visualisation inside the 45-degree fields that were not identified in the NDESP images: three patients (0.24%) with IRMA and five patients (0.40%) with maculopathy. The rates of ungradable encounters were 12 (0.95%) and 13 (1.03%) with the EIDON and NDESP images, respectively.ConclusionThe EIDON identifies a small number of additional patients with referable disease which are not detected with standard imaging. This is due to the EIDON finding disease outside the standard FOV and greater clarity finding disease within the standard FOV.