Search

Background/objectives: Timely assessment and treatment of patients with neovascular AMD (nAMD) are crucial to preservation of vision. Loss to follow up (LTFU) in these patients is a problem but this has not been systematically investigated., Subjects/methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical records of patients with nAMD first treated with anti-VEGF therapy from 1st Jan 2014 to 31st Dec 2018, was conducted in January 2021. Any patient not seen for more than 12 months was classed as no longer attending., Results: Of the 1328 patients who attended between 2014 and 2018, 348 had failed to attend and were eligible for inclusion in this study. Reasons noted for discontinuation of care: discharged by clinician (33.3%), died (20.7%), moved to another unit outside of area (17.5%), stopped attending due to ill-health (13.5%), discharged due to failure to attend (5.6%) and patient choice to no longer attend (4.6%). There were 16 (4.6%) who did not receive any further appointments despite clinician request for follow-up. After 5 years, 50.5% of patients were no longer attending for treatment. Age was a factor in failure to attend, with 7 out of 12 patients aged >100 years no longer being followed up, compared to 1 out of 11 of 50-59 year-olds., Conclusions: When analysing visual outcomes in an AMD service it is important to characterise the patients who are lost to follow up. The outcomes for this group may be avoidably poor and understanding the factors influencing LTFU rate is crucial to addressing shortcomings in a hospital AMD service., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To estimate prevalence and incidence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in a UK region by severity between 2012 and 2016 and risk factors for progression to proliferative DR (PDR)., Methods: Electronic medical records from people with diabetes (PWD) ≥18 years seen at the Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (GDESP) and the hospital eye clinic were analysed (HEC). Prevalence and incidence of DR per 100 PWD (%) by calendar year, grade and diabetes type were estimated using log-linear regression. Progression to PDR and associated risk factors were estimated using parametric survival analyses., Results: Across the study period, 35 873 PWD had at least one DR assessment. They were aged 66 (56-75) years (median (interquartile range)), 57% male, 5 (1-10) years since diabetes diagnosis, 93% Type 2 diabetes. Prevalence of DR decreased from 38.9% (95% CI: 38.1%, 39.8%) in 2012 to 36.6% (95% CI: 35.9%, 37.3%) in 2016 (p < 0.001). Incidence of any DR decreased from 10.9% (95% CI: 10.4%, 11.5%) in 2013 to 8.5% (95% CI: 8.1%, 9.0%) in 2016 (p < 0.001). Prevalence of PDR decreased from 3.5% (95% CI: 3.3%, 3.8%) in 2012 to 3.1% (95% CI 2.9%, 3.3%) in 2016 (p = 0.008). Incidence of PDR did not change over time. HbA 1c and bilateral moderate-severe NPDR were statistically significant risk factors associated with progression to PDR., Conclusions: Incidence and prevalence of DR decreased between 2012 and 2016 in this well-characterized population of the UK., (© 2021 Boehringer Ingelheim International GmBH. Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Aims: To estimate the incidence of early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) level 47 and 53 and progression to treatment with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for proliferative DR (PDR)., Methods: Log-linear regression was used to estimate the incidence of level 47-53 or worse for 33,009 people with diabetes (PWD) in Gloucestershire during 2013-2016 by calendar year and diabetes type, based on the first recording. Progression was analysed in Gloucestershire and Bristol with a parametric survival analysis examining the association of baseline and time-varying demographic and clinical factors on time to PRP after the first recording of level 47-53., Results: Incidence decreased from 0.57 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.48-0.67) per 100 PWD in 2013 to 0.35 (95% CI 0.29-0.43) in 2016 (p < 0.001). For progression, 338 eligible PWD from Gloucestershire and 418 from Bristol were followed for a median of 1.4 years; 78 and 83% had Type 2 diabetes and a median (interquartile range) of 15 (10-22) and 17 (11-25) years duration of diagnosed diabetes respectively. Three years from the incident ETDRS 47-53, 18.9% and 17.2% had received PRP respectively. For Gloucestershire, severe IRMA and updated mean HbA 1c were associated with an increase in the risk of initiating PRP (hazard ratio 3.14 (95% CI: 1.60-6.15) and 1.21 (95% CI: 1.06-1.38 per 10 mmol/mol) respectively)., Conclusion: This study provides additional understanding of this population and shows that a high proportion of patients with ETDRS levels 47-53 need to be monitored as they are at high risk of progressing to PDR., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Aims/hypothesis: Using variable diabetic retinopathy screening intervals, informed by personal risk levels, offers improved engagement of people with diabetes and reallocation of resources to high-risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. However, safety data on extending screening intervals are minimal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised, variable-interval, risk-based population screening compared with usual care, with wide-ranging input from individuals with diabetes., Methods: This was a two-arm, parallel-assignment, equivalence RCT (minimum 2 year follow-up) in individuals with diabetes aged 12 years or older registered with a single English screening programme. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 at baseline to individualised screening at 6, 12 or 24 months for those at high, medium and low risk, respectively, as determined at each screening episode by a risk-calculation engine using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control group). Screening staff and investigators were observer-masked to allocation and interval. Data were collected within the screening programme. The primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from National Health Service and societal perspectives., Results: A total of 4534 participants were randomised. After withdrawals, there were 2097 participants in the individualised screening arm and 2224 in the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between the two arms (individualised screening 83.6%; control arm 84.7%; difference -1.0 [95% CI -3.2, 1.2]), while sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection rates were non-inferior in the individualised screening arm (individualised screening 1.4%, control arm 1.7%; difference -0.3 [95% CI -1.1, 0.5]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. No important adverse events were observed. Mean differences in complete case quality-adjusted life-years (EuroQol Five-Dimension Questionnaire, Health Utilities Index Mark 3) did not significantly differ from zero; multiple imputation supported the dominance of individualised screening. Incremental cost savings per person with individualised screening were £17.34 (95% CI 17.02, 17.67) from the National Health Service perspective and £23.11 (95% CI 22.73, 23.53) from the societal perspective, representing a 21% reduction in overall programme costs. Overall, 43.2% fewer screening appointments were required in the individualised arm., Conclusions/interpretation: Stakeholders involved in diabetes care can be reassured by this study, which is the largest ophthalmic RCT in diabetic retinopathy screening to date, that extended and individualised, variable-interval, risk-based screening is feasible and can be safely and cost-effectively introduced in established systematic programmes. Because of the 2 year time horizon of the trial and the long time frame of the disease, robust monitoring of attendance and retinopathy rates should be included in any future implementation., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 87561257 FUNDING: The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Graphical abstract.

Aims: To establish the prevalence of admission plasma glucose in 'diabetes' and 'at risk' ranges in emergency hospital admissions with no prior diagnosis of diabetes; characteristics of people with hyperglycaemia; and factors influencing glucose measurement., Methods: Electronic patient records for 113 097 hospital admissions over 1 year from 2014 to 2015 included 43 201 emergencies with glucose available for 31 927 (74%) admissions, comprising 22 045 people. Data are presented for 18 965 people with no prior diagnosis of diabetes and glucose available on first attendance., Results: Three quarters (14 214) were White Europeans aged 62 (43-78) years, median (IQ range); 12% (2241) South Asians 46 (32-64) years; 9% (1726) Unknown/Other ethnicities 43 (29-61) years; and 4% (784) Afro-Caribbeans 49 (33-63) years, P  < .001. Overall, 5% (1003) had glucose in the 'diabetes' range (≥11.1 mmol/L) higher at 8% (175) for South Asians; 16% (3042) were 'at risk' (7.8-11.0 mmol/L), that is 17% (2379) White Europeans, 15% (338) South Asians, 14% (236) Unknown/Others and 11% (89) Afro-Caribbeans, P  < .001. The prevalence for South Asians aged <30 years was 2.1% and 5.2%, respectively, 2.6% and 8.6% for Afro-Caribbeans <30 years, and 2.0% and 8.4% for White Europeans <40 years. Glucose increased with age and was more often in the 'diabetes' range for South Asians than White Europeans with South Asian men particularly affected. One third of all emergency admissions were for <24 hours with 58% of these having glucose measured compared to 82% with duration >24 hours., Conclusions: Hyperglycaemia was evident in 21% of adults admitted as an emergency; various aspects related to follow-up and initial testing, age and ethnicity need to be considered by professional bodies addressing undiagnosed diabetes in hospital admissions., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest for the authors. The study sponsor, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, was not involved in the design of the study; the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication., (© 2020 The Authors. Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Currently, all people with diabetes (PWD) aged 12 years and over in the UK are invited for screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) annually. Resources are not increasing despite a 5% increase in the numbers of PWD nationwide each year. We describe the rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of personalised variable-interval risk-based screening for DR. This is the first randomised trial of personalised screening for DR and the largest ophthalmic RCT in the UK., Methods and Analysis: PWD attending seven screening clinics in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Screening Programme were recruited into a single site RCT with a 1:1 allocation to individualised risk-based variable-interval or annual screening intervals. A risk calculation engine developed for the trial estimates the probability that an individual will develop referable disease (screen positive DR) within the next 6, 12 or 24 months using demographic, retinopathy and systemic risk factor data from primary care and screening programme records. Dynamic, secure, real-time data connections have been developed. The primary outcome is attendance for follow-up screening. We will test for equivalence in attendance rates between the two arms. Secondary outcomes are rates and severity of DR, visual outcomes, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life. The required sample size was 4460 PWD. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from National Research Ethics Service Committee North West - Preston, reference 14/NW/0034. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. This pragmatic RCT will inform screening policy in the UK and elsewhere., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN87561257; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Annually 2.7 million individuals are offered screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in England. Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography (SD-OCT) has the potential to relieve pressure on NHS services by correctly identifying patients who are screen positive for maculopathy on two-dimensional photography without evidence of clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), limiting the number of referrals to hospitals. We aim to assess whether the addition of SDOCT imaging in digital surveillance clinics is a cost-effective intervention relative to hospital eye service (HES) follow-up., Methods: We used patient-level data from the Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Service linked to the local digital surveillance programme and HES between 2012 and 2015. A model was used to simulate the progression of individuals with background diabetic retinopathy (R1) and diabetic maculopathy (M1) following DR screening across the clinic pathways over 12 months., Results: Between January 2012 and December 2014, 696 people undergoing DR screening were found to have screen-positive maculopathy in at least one eye for the first time, with a total of 766 eyes identified as having R1M1. The mean annual cost of assessing and surveillance through the SD-OCT clinic pathway was £101 (95% CI: 91-139) as compared with £177 (95%CI: 164-219) under the HES pathway. Surveillance under an SD-OCT clinic generated cost savings of £76 (95% CI: 70-81) per patient., Conclusions: Our analysis shows that SD-OCT surveillance of patients diagnosed as R1M1 at DR screening is not only cost-effective but generates considerable cost savings.

Aims/hypothesis: Individualised variable-interval risk-based screening offers better targeting and improved cost-effectiveness in screening for diabetic retinopathy. We developed a generalisable risk calculation engine (RCE) to assign personalised intervals linked to local population characteristics, and explored differences in assignment compared with current practice., Methods: Data from 5 years of photographic screening and primary care for people with diabetes, screen negative at the first of > 1 episode, were combined in a purpose-built near-real-time warehouse. Covariates were selected from a dataset created using mixed qualitative/quantitative methods. Markov modelling predicted progression to screen-positive (referable diabetic retinopathy) against the local cohort history. Retinopathy grade informed baseline risk and multiple imputation dealt with missing data. Acceptable intervals (6, 12, 24 months) and risk threshold (2.5%) were established with patients and professional end users., Results: Data were from 11,806 people with diabetes (46,525 episodes, 388 screen-positive). Covariates with sufficient predictive value were: duration of known disease, HbA 1c , age, systolic BP and total cholesterol. Corrected AUC (95% CIs) were: 6 months 0.88 (0.83, 0.93), 12 months 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) and 24 months 0.91 (0.87, 0.94). Sensitivities/specificities for a 2.5% risk were: 6 months 0.61, 0.93, 12 months 0.67, 0.90 and 24 months 0.82, 0.81. Implementing individualised RCE-based intervals would reduce the proportion of people becoming screen-positive before the allocated screening date by > 50% and the number of episodes by 30%., Conclusions/interpretation: The Liverpool RCE shows sufficient performance for a local introduction into practice before wider implementation, subject to external validation. This approach offers potential enhancements of screening in improved local applicability, targeting and cost-effectiveness.

Objectives: Non-attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening has financial implications for screening programmes and potential clinical costs to patients. We sought to identify explanations for why patients had never attended a screening appointment (never attendance) in one programme., Design: Qualitative analysis of a service evaluation., Setting: One South London (UK) diabetic eye screening programme., Participants and Procedure: Patients who had been registered with one screening programme for at least 18 months and who had never attended screening within the programme were contacted by telephone to ascertain why this was the case. Patients' general practices were also contacted for information about why each patient may not have attended. Framework analysis was used to interpret responses., Results: Of the 296 patients, 38 were not eligible for screening and of the 258 eligible patients, 159 were not contactable (31 of these had phone numbers that were not in use). We obtained reasons from patients/general practices/clinical notes for non-attendance for 146 (57%) patients. A number of patient-level and system-level factors were given to explain non-attendance. Patient-level factors included having other commitments, being anxious about screening, not engaging with any diabetes care and being misinformed about screening. System-level factors included miscommunication about where the patient lives, their clinical situation and practical problems that could have been overcome had their existence been shared between programmes., Conclusions: This service evaluation provides unique insight into the patient-level and system-level reasons for never attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening. Improved sharing of relevant information between providers has the potential to facilitate increased uptake of screening. Greater awareness of patient-level barriers may help providers offer a more accessible service., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Android fat distribution (abdominal obesity) is associated with insulin resistance, hepatic steatosis, and greater secretion of large very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particles in men. Since abdominal obesity is becoming increasingly prevalent in women, we aimed to investigate the relationship between android fat and hepatic lipid metabolism in pre- and postmenopausal women., Methods and Results: We used a combination of stable isotope tracer techniques to investigate intrahepatic fatty acid synthesis and partitioning in 29 lean and 29 abdominally obese women (android fat/total fat 0.065 [0.02 to 0.08] and 0.095 [0.08 to 0.11], respectively). Thirty women were premenopausal aged 35 to 45 and they were matched for abdominal obesity with 28 postmenopausal women aged 55 to 65. As anticipated, abdominal obese women were more insulin resistant with enhanced hepatic secretion of large (404±30 versus 268±26 mg/kg lean mass, P<0.001) but not small VLDL (160±11 versus 142±13). However, postmenopausal status had a pronounced effect on the characteristics of small VLDL particles, which were considerably triglyceride-enriched (production ratio of VLDL2- triglyceride:apolipoprotein B 30±5.3 versus 19±1.6, P<0.05). In contrast to postmenopausal women, there was a tight control of hepatic fatty acid metabolism and triglyceride production in premenopausal women, whereby oxidation (rs=-0.49, P=0.006), de novo lipogenesis (rs=0.55, P=0.003), and desaturation (rs=0.48, P=0.012) were closely correlated with abdominal obesity-driven large VLDL-triglyceride secretion rate., Conclusions: In women, abdominal obesity is a major driver of hepatic large VLDL particle secretion, whereas postmenopausal status was characterized by increased small VLDL particle size. These data provide a mechanistic basis for the hyperlipidemia observed in postmenopausal obesity., (© 2015 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Background: The English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme was established in 2003. Eligible people are invited annually for digital retinal photography screening. Those found to have potentially sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) are referred to surveillance clinics or to Hospital Eye Services., Objectives: To determine whether personalised screening intervals are cost-effective., Design: Risk factors were identified in Gloucestershire, UK using survival modelling. A probabilistic decision hidden (unobserved) Markov model with a misgrading matrix was developed. This informed estimation of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in patients without STDR. Two personalised risk stratification models were employed: two screening episodes (SEs) (low, medium or high risk) or one SE with clinical information (low, medium-low, medium-high or high risk). The risk factor models were validated in other populations., Setting: Gloucestershire, Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia (all UK)., Participants: People with diabetes in Gloucestershire with risk stratification model validation using data from Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia., Main Outcome Measures: Personalised risk-based algorithm for screening interval; cost-effectiveness of different screening intervals., Results: Data were obtained in Gloucestershire from 12,790 people with diabetes with known risk factors to derive the risk estimation models, from 15,877 people to inform the uptake of screening and from 17,043 people to inform the health-care resource-usage costs. Two stratification models were developed: one using only results from previous screening events and one using previous screening and some commonly available GP data. Both models were capable of differentiating groups at low and high risk of development of STDR. The rate of progression to STDR was 5 per 1000 person-years (PYs) in the lowest decile of risk and 75 per 1000 PYs in the highest decile. In the absence of personalised risk stratification, the most cost-effective screening interval was to screen all patients every 3 years, with a 46% probability of this being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Using either risk stratification models, screening patients at low risk every 5 years was the most cost-effective option, with a probability of 99-100% at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. For the medium-risk groups screening every 3 years had a probability of 43-48% while screening high-risk groups every 2 years was cost-effective with a probability of 55-59%., Conclusions: The study found that annual screening of all patients for STDR was not cost-effective. Screening this entire cohort every 3 years was most likely to be cost-effective. When personalised intervals are applied, screening those in our low-risk groups every 5 years was found to be cost-effective. Screening high-risk groups every 2 years further improved the cost-effectiveness of the programme. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimated incremental costs and in the incremental QALYs, particularly with regard to implications of an increasing proportion of maculopathy cases receiving intravitreal injection rather than laser treatment. Future work should focus on improving the understanding of risk, validating in further populations and investigating quality issues in imaging and assessment including the potential for automated image grading., Study Registration: Integrated Research Application System project number 118959., Funding Details: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Objective: This study aimed to follow the natural progression of retinal changes in patients with diabetes. Such information should inform decisions with regard to the screening intervals for such patients., Research Design and Methods: An observational study was undertaken linking the data from seven diabetes retinal screening programs across the U.K. for retinal grading results between 2005 and 2012. Patients with absent or background retinopathy were followed up for progression to the end points referable retinopathy and treatable retinopathy (proliferative retinopathy)., Results: In total, 354,549 patients were observed for up to 4 years during which 16,196 patients progressed to referable retinopathy. Of patients with no retinopathy in either eye for two successive screening episodes at least 12 months apart, the conditions of between 0.3% (95% CI 0.3-0.8%) and 1.3% (1.0-1.6%) of patients progressed to referable retinopathy, and rates of treatable eye disease were <0.3% at 2 years. The corresponding progression rates for patients with bilateral background retinopathy in successive screening episodes were 13-29% and up to 4%, respectively, in the different programs., Conclusions: It may be possible to stratify patients for risk, according to baseline retinal criteria, into groups with low and high risk of their conditions progressing to proliferative retinopathy. Screening intervals for such diverse groups of patients could safely be modified according to their risk., (© 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Background: There is an increasing prevalence of diabetes. Doctors in training, irrespective of specialty, will have patients with diabetes under their care. The aim of this further evaluation of the TOPDOC Diabetes Study data was to identify if there was any variation in confidence in managing diabetes depending on the geographical location of trainees and career aspirations., Methods: An online national survey using a pre-validated questionnaire was administered to trainee doctors. A 4-point confidence rating scale was used to rate confidence in managing aspects of diabetes care and a 6-point scale used to quantify how often trainees would contribute to the management of patients with diabetes. Responses were grouped depending on which UK country trainees were based and their intended career choice., Results: Trainees in Northern Ireland reported being less confident in IGT diagnosis, use of IV insulin and peri-operative management and were less likely to adjust oral treatment, contact specialist, educate lifestyle, and optimise treatment. Trainees in Scotland were less likely to contact a specialist, but more likely to educate on lifestyle, change insulin, and offer follow-up advice. In Northern Ireland, Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) training in diagnosis was felt less adequate, PG training in emergencies less adequate, and reporting of need for further training higher. Trainees in Wales felt UG training to be inadequate. In Scotland more trainees felt UG training in diagnosis and optimising treatment was inadequate. Physicians were more likely to report confidence in managing patients with diabetes and to engage in different aspects of diabetes care. Aspiring physicians were less likely to feel the need for more training in diabetes care; however a clear majority still felt they needed more training in all aspects of care., Conclusions: Doctors in training have poor confidence levels dealing with diabetes related care issues. Although there is variability between different groups of trainees according to geographical location and career aspirations, this is a UK wide issue. There should be a UK wide standardised approach to improving training for junior doctors in diabetes care with local training guided by specific needs.

Background: The NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme aims to reduce the risk of sight loss among people with diabetes in England by enabling prompt diagnosis of sight-threatening retinopathy. However, the rate of screening uptake between practices can vary from 55% to 95%. Existing research focuses on the impact of patient demographics but little is known about GP practice-related factors that can make a difference., Aim: To identify factors contributing to high or low patient uptake of retinopathy screening., Design and Setting: Qualitative case-based study; nine purposively selected GP practices (deprived/affluent; high/low screening uptake) in three retinopathy screening programme areas., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, primary care professionals, and screeners. A comparative case-based analysis was carried out to identify factors related to high or low screening uptake., Results: Eight possible factors that influenced uptake were identified. Five modifiable factors related to service and staff interactions: communication with screening services; contacting patients; integration of screening with other care; focus on the newly diagnosed; and perception of non-attenders. Three factors were non-modifiable challenges related to practice location: level of deprivation; diversity of ethnicities and languages; and transport and access. All practices adopted strategies to improve uptake, but the presence of two or more major barriers made it very hard for practices to achieve higher uptake levels., Conclusions: A range of service-level opportunities to improve screening attendance were identified that are available to practices and screening teams. More research is needed into the complex interfaces of care that make up retinopathy screening., (© British Journal of General Practice 2014.)

Aims: To report estimates of the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and maculopathy grades for a large cohort of patients managed by the UK hospital eye service (HES)., Methods: Anonymised data were extracted from 30 UK NHS hospital trusts using a single ophthalmic electronic medical record (EMR) for the period from April 2000 to November 2010 to create the National Ophthalmology Database (NOD). From 2007, the EMR facilitated capture of a nationally agreed-upon standardised data set (DR Structured Assessment) relating to the presence or absence of clinical signs of DR and maculopathy. An algorithm in the software automatically calculated the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study grades of retinopathy and maculopathy., Results: Between 2007 and 2010, 307,538 patients had data on the NOD, with 76,127 (24.8%) patients having been recorded as having diabetes. The proportion of patients with diabetes who had a structured assessment increased from 50.7% (2007) to 86.8% (2010). In each NHS year, 12.6-20.6% of eyes with structured assessments had no DR; 59.6-67.3% had non-proliferative DR; and 18.3-20.9% had active or regressed proliferative DR. Clinically significant macular oedema was present in 15.8-18.1% of eyes, and in 8.7-10.0% of eyes, this involved the central macula., Conclusion: This study provides contemporary estimates of the prevalence of retinopathy and maculopathy grades in a large cohort of patients with diabetes managed by the UK HES. Centre-involving diabetic macular oedema, potentially amenable to anti-VEGF therapy, is present in the eyes of almost 10% of these patients. This information is useful for clinicians, health-care economists, and commissioners involved in planning and delivering diabetic eye services.

There is currently an epidemic of diabetes in the world, principally type 2 diabetes that is linked to changing lifestyle, obesity, and increasing age of the population. Latest estimates from the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) forecasts a rise from 366 million people worldwide to 552 million by 2030. Type 1 diabetes is more common in the Northern hemisphere with the highest rates in Finland and there is evidence of a rise in some central European countries, particularly in the younger children under 5 years of age. Modifiable risk factors for progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) are blood glucose, blood pressure, serum lipids, and smoking. Nonmodifiable risk factors are duration, age, genetic predisposition, and ethnicity. Other risk factors are pregnancy, microaneurysm count in an eye, microaneurysm formation rate, and the presence of any DR in the second eye. DR, macular edema (ME), and proliferative DR (PDR) develop with increased duration of diabetes and the rates are dependent on the above risk factors. In one study of type 1 diabetes, the median individual risk for the development of early retinal changes was 9.1 years of diabetes duration. Another study reported the 25 year incidence of proliferative retinopathy among population-based cohort of type 1 patients with diabetes was 42.9%. In recent years, people with diabetes have lower rates of progression than historically to PDR and severe visual loss, which may reflect better control of glucose, blood pressure, and serum lipids, and earlier diagnosis.

Purpose: The Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Programme offers annual digital photographic screening for diabetic retinopathy to a countywide population of people with diabetes. This study was designed to investigate progression of diabetic retinopathy in this programme of the English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme., Methods: Mydriatic digital retinal photographs of people with diabetes screened on at least 2 occasions between 2005 and 2010 were graded and included in this study if the classification at first screening was no DR (R0), background DR in one (R1a) or both eyes (R1b). Times to detection of referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR) comprising maculopathy (M1), preproliferative (R2) or proliferative retinopathy (R3) were analysed using survival models., Results: Data were available on 19 044 patients, 56% men, age at screening 66 (57-74) years (median, 25th, 75th centile). A total of 8.3% of those with R1a and 28.2% of those with R1b progressed to any RDR, hazard ratios 2.9 [2.5-3.3] and 11.3 [10.0-12.8]. Similarly 7.1% and 0.11% of those with R1a progressed to M1 and R3, hazard ratios 2.7 [2.3-3.2] and 1.6 [0.5-5.0], compared to 21.8% and 1.07% of those with R1b, hazard ratio 9.1 [7.8-10.4] and 15.0 [7.1-31.5]., Conclusions: The risk of progression is significantly higher for those with background DR in both eyes than those with background retinopathy in only one or in neither eye., (© 2013 The Authors Acta Ophthalmologica © 2013 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Objective: The American Diabetes Association and the English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Program recommend annual screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) with referral to ophthalmology clinics of patients with sight-threatening DR (STDR). Using only longitudinal data from retinal photographs in the population-based NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Program in Gloucestershire, we developed a simple means to estimate risk of STDR., Research Design and Methods: From 2005, 14,554 patients with no DR or mild nonproliferative DR only at two consecutive annual digital photographic screenings were categorized by the presence of DR in neither, one, or both eyes at each screening and were followed for a further median 2.8 years., Results: Of 7,246 with no DR at either screening, 120 progressed to STDR, equivalent to an annual rate of 0.7%. Of 1,778 with no DR in either eye at first screening and in one eye at second screening, 80 progressed to STDR, equivalent to an annual rate of 1.9% and to a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.8) compared with those with no DR. Of 1,159 with background DR in both eyes at both screenings, 299 progressed to STDR equivalent to an annual rate of 11% and an HR of 18.2 (14.7-22.5) compared with individuals with no DR., Conclusions: Combining the results from 2 consecutive years of photographic screening enables estimation of the risk of future development of STDR. In countries with systematic screening programs, these results could inform decisions about screening frequency.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to define which visual acuity (VA) measurements are the best indicators of high-quality care for patients receiving intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD)., Methods: Analysis of prospectively collected data recorded within an electronic medical record system on treatment-naive, first-eligible eyes with nAMD, treated with ranibizumab using an as-needed treatment regimen with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Data collection included the following: age, gender, laterality, type of nAMD, VA, central 1 mm OCT retinal thickness, number of intravitreal injections, and number of follow-up assessments., Results: Data were available on the first-treated eye from 406 patients with at least 1 year follow-up; of these, 198 had data at 2 years. The mean baseline VA of 54.4 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters improved to 58.5 letters at 12 months and to 56.8 letters at 24 months. The mean VA changes from baseline to 1 year were +6.5, +7.5, +1.7, and -1.5 letters, respectively, for baseline VA categories of 23-35, 36-55, 56-70, and >70 letters. Change in mean VA from the end of the loading phase to year 1 ranged from -2.9 to +1.4 letters for the different baseline VA categories. The mean number of injections were similar across baseline VA categories ranging from 5.7 to 6.0 injections in year 1 and from 3.3 to 3.8 in year 2., Conclusions: This large, real-world series demonstrates that mean change in VA is largely a function of selection criteria and baseline VA. The quality of a service is therefore better judged by actual VA outcomes and maintenance of vision after the loading phase.

Background: There is an increased prevalence of diabetes. Doctors in training, irrespective of specialty, will have patients with diabetes under their care., Aim: To determine levels of confidence of doctors in training in the management of diabetes and establish their training needs in this area of clinical practice., Design: A national online survey of trainee doctors in the UK using a pre-validated questionnaire., Methods: A four-point confidence rating scale was used to rate confidence in the management of diabetes and comparators. A six-point scale was used to quantify how often trainees would contribute to the management of patients with diabetes and trainees were asked about their training in managing diabetes., Results: A total of 2149 doctors completed the survey. The percentage 'fully confident' in diagnosing diabetes was 27%, diagnosing and managing hypoglycaemia 55%, diagnosing and managing diabetic ketoacidosis 43%, managing intravenous (IV) insulin 27%, prescribing IV fluids for patients with diabetes 39% and altering diabetes therapy prior to surgery/other procedure 18%. In comparison, 66% and 65% were 'fully confident' in the management of angina and asthma, respectively (P < 0.05). Forty-one percent would take the initiative to optimize glycaemic control for patients under their care >80% of the time. Respectively, 19% and 35% of respondents reported that their undergraduate and postgraduate training had prepared them adequately to optimize treatment of diabetes. The majority (>70%) wanted further training in managing all aspects of diabetes care., Conclusions: Trainee doctors in the UK lack confidence in the management of diabetes, are unlikely to take the initiative to optimize glycaemic control and report a need for further training.

Aims/hypothesis: The aim of the study was to examine the impact of statin or omega-3-acid ethyl esters 90 (omega-3 EE90; omega-3-acid ethyl esters 90 refers to a mixture of ethyl esters of n-3 fatty acids) on estimated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in community-based people with type 2 diabetes but without known CVD and not taking lipid-lowering therapy., Methods: A central computer randomised 800 patients in 59 UK general practices to atorvastatin (n = 401, 20 mg/day) or placebo (n = 399) and omega-3 EE90 (n = 397, 2 g/day) or placebo (n = 403) in a concealed factorial manner. Participants with LDL-cholesterol <2.6 mmol/l, triacylglycerol <1.5 mmol/l and estimated 10-year CVD risk <20% were compared at 4 months., Results: Mean (SD) age was 63.5 (11.7) years, HbA(1c) 6.9 (1.1) % and known diabetes duration (median [interquartile range]) was 4 (2-8) years. Fifty-seven per cent were men, 90% white and 74% had an estimated 10-year CVD risk >or=20%. Of 732 patients with 4-month data, more allocated atorvastatin (n = 371) compared with placebo (n = 361) achieved LDL-cholesterol <2.6 mmol/l (91% vs 24%, p < 0.001) and had estimated 10-year CVD risks <20% (38% vs 26%, p < 0.001). No differences were seen between those allocated omega-3 EE90 (n = 371) compared with placebo (n = 361) for participants achieving triacylglycerol <1.5 mmol/l (65% vs 60%, p = 0.18) or estimated 10-year CVD risks <20% (34% vs 30%, p = 0.18). There were no side effects of note., Conclusions/interpretation: Many community-based diabetic patients without known CVD remain at high CVD risk despite statin treatment and require additional risk-reduction strategies. The impact of omega-3 EE90 on CVD risk will remain uncertain until clinical endpoint trial results are available., Trial Registration: ISRCT no. 76737502.

Objective: We investigated how beta-cell function and insulin sensitivity or resistance are affected by the type of blood sample collected or choice of insulin assay and homeostatis model assessment (HOMA) calculator (http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk)., Research Design and Methods: Insulin was measured using 11 different assays in serum and 1 assay in heparinized plasma. Fasting subjects with normoglycemia (n = 12), pre-diabetes, i.e., impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance (n = 18), or type 2 diabetes (n = 67) were recruited. Patients treated with insulin or those who were insulin antibody-positive were excluded. HOMA estimates were calculated using specific insulin (SI) or radioimmunoassay (RIA) calculators (version 2.2)., Results: All glucose values were within model (HOMA) limits but not all insulin results, as 4.3% were <20 pmol/l and 1% were >300 pmol/l. beta-Cell function derived from different insulin assays ranged from 67 to 122% (median) for those with normoglycemia (P = 0.026), from 89 to 138% for those with pre-diabetes (P = 0.990), and from 50 to 81% for those with type 2 diabetes (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, insulin resistance ranged from 0.8 to 2.0 (P = 0.0007), from 1.9 to 3.2 (P = 0.842), and from 1.5 to 2.9 (P < 0.0001), respectively. This twofold variation in HOMA estimates from the various insulin assays studied in serum may be significant metabolically. Insulin was 15% lower in heparinized plasma (used in the original HOMA study) compared with serum, which is now more commonly used. beta-Cell function differed by 11% and insulin resistance by 15% when estimates derived from specific insulin were calculated using the RIA rather than the SI calculator., Conclusions: To enable comparison of HOMA estimates among individuals and different research studies, preanalytical factors and calculator selection should be standardized with insulin assays traceable to an insulin reference method procedure.

Background: The American Diabetes Association task force on standardization of insulin assays in 1996 showed wide variation in assay bias. Newer assays are specific for insulin, with several now available on automated immunoassay analyzers., Methods: In 2004, we compared 11 commercially available insulin assays by analyzing 150 serum samples (99 fasting/51 postprandial) from study participants with various degrees of glucose intolerance (exclusions being type 1 diabetes, insulin treatment, or presence of insulin antibodies). All assays were calibrated against International Reference Preparation 66/304. One assay was not specific for insulin and another was an RIA; 10 assays used enzyme/chemiluminescent labels. Bland-Altman difference plots were modified to use the mean insulin from all assays on the x-axis as a common comparator., Results: As in the 1996 study, insulin values from the different assays varied by a factor of 2, with the nonspecific assay ranking in the middle of the distribution. Spearman rank correlation coefficients, for ranking samples vs the mean, were 0.983-0.997. Both offsets and concentration-dependent differences were seen in the modified difference plots. Imprecision (mean CV) for automated assays (3%) was not significantly different from manual assays (5%). Similar values were obtained when one automated assay was run in laboratories in both the UK and the US. Results of 1 assay showed lower insulin concentrations in heparinized plasma than in serum., Conclusions: Assay performance must be considered before comparing insulin results. The 2-fold variation in insulin results may be related to specificity, manufacturers' calibration procedures or conversion factors.