Search

Objectives: In England and Wales, treatment options were limited for patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) with phakic eyes that failed anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment pre-2022. This study aimed to quantify the response to, and treatment burden of, anti-VEGF treatment in phakic eyes., Methods: Retrospective, cohort study using electronic patient record data from two UK centres between 2015 and 2020. Primary objective was proportion of phakic eyes with a suboptimal response after initial 6 months of anti-VEGF treatment. Data were available for 500 eyes from 399 patients., Results: At 6 months significantly more eyes had a suboptimal response to anti-VEGF treatment: 65.8% (95% CI 61.5-70.0%) vs 34.2% (95% CI 30.0-38.5%), p < 0.0001. Baseline visual acuity (VA) predicted VA outcome, however, despite greater gains in eyes with poorer VA, such eyes did not achieve the same VA levels as those who started treatment with better VA. Only 53.6% of eyes had more than three injections in the first 6 months indicating difficulties in delivering high volume/high frequency treatment. Treatment and review burden were similar over the following years regardless of response to anti-VEGF treatment., Conclusions: Data confirm previous real world evidence around response to anti-VEGF treatment, importance of baseline VA and frequency of injections in predicting outcomes in a UK setting. Continuing treatment beyond 6 months in suboptimal responders imposes unnecessary treatment burden without significant change in VA. In suboptimal responders, consideration of early switch to longer acting steroid treatments may help to reduce treatment burden, whilst maintaining or improving vision., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background/ Objectives: DRAKO (NCT02850263) was a 24-month, prospective, observational, multi-centre cohort study that enrolled patients diagnosed with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) including central involvement. The study aimed to evaluate standard of care intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment in the UK. This analysis describes the 12-month outcomes for patients with prior anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for DMO other than IVT-AFL (C2), and 2-year outcomes for both anti-VEGF treatment-naïve patients (C1) and C2 patients., Methods: Study eyes were treated with IVT-AFL as per local standard of care. Mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in ETDRS letters and central subfield thickness (CST) were stratified by baseline factors. Changes in diabetic retinopathy assessments, glycated haemoglobin A 1c levels and vision-related quality of life (QoL) were evaluated alongside numbers of injections administered and safety outcomes., Results: For C1, mean (SD) changes from baseline in BCVA of +0.7 (12.7) letters and CST of -123.3 (104.3) µm were observed at Month 24. For C2, mean (SD) changes from baseline for BCVA of + 0.2 (10.2) letters and -0.3 (13.0) letters, and CST of -79.1 (137.6) µm and -91.6 (132.9) µm, were observed at 12 and 24 months, respectively. In Year 2, C1 and C2 patients received a mean of 3.7 and 4.3 injections, respectively., Conclusions: Year 2 results indicate that IVT-AFL is an effective treatment for DMO in real-world UK clinical practice, despite relatively low injection numbers. The high baseline visual acuity and QoL scores were maintained and there was further improvement in anatomical outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background/objectives: DRAKO (NCT02850263) was a 24-month, prospective, non-interventional, multi-centre cohort study enrolling patients with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) including central involvement. The study evaluated UK standard-of-care intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment. This analysis describes the treatment pathway and service provision for the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment-naïve (C1) and non-naïve patients (C2) who received prior anti-VEGF treatment for DMO other than IVT-AFL., Methods: Mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield thickness were measured and stratified by baseline factors, including ethnicity and administration of five initial monthly injections within predefined windows. Clinic visits were classified as treatment only (T1), monitoring assessment only (T2), combined visits (T3) or post-injection visits with no treatment or assessment (T4)., Results: Median time from decision to treat to treatment was 6 days. As a percentage of total visits, T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 7%, 42%, 48% and 3% for C1 and 11%, 39%, 48% and 2% for C2. Most IVT-AFL injections were administered by healthcare professionals (HCPs) other than doctors (C1, 57.4%; C2, 58.5%). The percentage of treatments associated with a procedure-related adverse event where at least 75% of injections were completed by the same injector role were similar for doctors and other HCPs (C1, 1.1% and 0.8%; C2, 0.7%, and 1.0%)., Conclusions: Results indicate that upon DMO diagnosis, patients were treated promptly, and most visits were combined (treatment and assessment) or monitoring only. Most IVT-AFL was administered by non-physicians with a similar treatment-related safety profile as IVT-AFL administered by physicians., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To 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) < 400 μm., Design: Pragmatic, multicenter, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomized, noninferiority trial., Participants: Adults with center-involved DME < 400 μm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in one/both eyes., Methods: Randomization 1:1 to 577 nm SML or SL treatment. Retreatments were allowed. Rescue with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was permitted if 10 or more ETDRS letter loss occurred, CRT increased > 400 μm, or both., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 24 months (noninferiority margin 5 ETDRS letters). Secondary outcomes were mean change from baseline to month 24 in binocular BCVA; CRT and mean deviation of Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; percentage meeting driving standards; EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), and Vision and Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) scores; cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained; adverse effects; and number of laser and rescue treatments., Results: The study recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of SML-treated and 86% of SL-treated patients had primary outcome data. Mean ± standard deviation BCVA change from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 ± 8.20 letters and -0.45 ± 6.72 letters in the SML and SL groups, respectively. Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was deemed not only noninferior but also equivalent to SL therapy because the 95% confidence interval (CI; -3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 ETDRS letters). No statistically significant difference was found in binocular BCVA (0.32 ETDRS letters; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.64 ETDRS letters; P = 0.63); CRT (-0.64 μm; 95% CI, -14.25 to 12.98 μm; P = 0.93); mean deviation of the visual field (0.39 decibels (dB); 95% CI, -0.23 to 1.02 dB; P = 0.21); meeting driving standards (percentage point difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -25.3% to 28.5%; P = 0.91); adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-1.34; P = 0.11); rescue treatments (percentage point difference, -2.8%; 95% CI, -13.1% to 7.5%; P = 0.59); or EQ-5D, NEI-VFQ-25, or VisQoL scores. Number of laser treatments was higher in the SML group (0.48; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79; P = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no differences in costs or QALYs., Conclusions: Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was equivalent to SL therapy, requiring slightly higher laser treatments., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends macular laser to treat diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm on optical coherence tomography. The DIAMONDS (DIAbetic Macular Oedema aNd Diode Subthreshold micropulse laser) trial compared standard threshold macular laser with subthreshold micropulse laser to treat diabetic macular oedema suitable for macular laser., Objectives: Determining the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser compared with standard threshold macular laser to treat diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm., Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomised, non-inferiority, clinical trial., Setting: Hospital eye services in the UK., Participants: Adults with diabetes and centre-involving diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm, and a visual acuity of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (Snellen equivalent > 20/320) in one/both eyes., Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive 577 nm subthreshold micropulse laser or standard threshold macular laser (e.g. argon laser, frequency-doubled neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet 532 nm laser); laser treatments could be repeated as needed. Rescue therapy with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was allowed if a loss of ≥ 10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters between visits occurred and/or central retinal subfield thickness increased to > 400 µm., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity in the study eye at 24 months (non-inferiority margin 5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters). Secondary outcomes included the mean change from baseline to 24 months in the following: binocular best-corrected visual acuity; central retinal subfield thickness; the mean deviation of the Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; the percentage of people meeting driving standards; and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire - 25 and Vision and Quality of Life Index scores. Other secondary outcomes were the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained, adverse effects, number of laser treatments and additional rescue treatments., Results: The DIAMONDS trial recruited fully ( n  = 266); 87% of participants in the subthreshold micropulse laser group and 86% of participants in the standard threshold macular laser group had primary outcome data. Groups were balanced regarding baseline characteristics. Mean best-corrected visual acuity change in the study eye from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 letters (standard deviation 8.20 letters) in the subthreshold micropulse laser group and -0.45 letters (standard deviation 6.72 letters) in the standard threshold macular laser group. Subthreshold micropulse laser was deemed to be not only non-inferior but also equivalent to standard threshold macular laser as the 95% confidence interval (-3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both the upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in any of the secondary outcomes investigated with the exception of the number of laser treatments performed, which was slightly higher in the subthreshold micropulse laser group (mean difference 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79; p  = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no significant difference in the cost per quality-adjusted life-years between groups., Future Work: A trial in people with ≥ 400 µm diabetic macular oedema comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy alone with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and macular laser applied at the time when central retinal subfield thickness has decreased to < 400 µm following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections would be of value because it could reduce the number of injections and, subsequently, costs and risks and inconvenience to patients., Limitations: The majority of participants enrolled had poorly controlled diabetes., Conclusions: Subthreshold micropulse laser was equivalent to standard threshold macular laser but required a slightly higher number of laser treatments., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as EudraCT 2015-001940-12, ISRCTN17742985 and NCT03690050., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 26, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objectives: DRAKO (NCT02850263) is a 24-month, prospective, non-interventional, multi-centre cohort study which enroled patients diagnosed with centre-involving diabetic macular oedema (DMO). The study aims to evaluate standard of care with intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) treatment in the UK. This analysis describes the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment-naive patient cohort after 12-month follow-up., Methods: Study eyes were treated with IVT-AFL as per local standard of care. The mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST) from baseline at 12 months were measured and stratified by baseline factors. The number of injections and safety data were also evaluated., Results: A total of 507 patients were enroled from 35 centres. Mean (SD) baseline BCVA was 71.4 (12.0) letters and CST was 448.7 (88.7) µm, with 63.1% of patients presenting with baseline BCVA ≥ 70 letters (mean 78.1). Mean (SD) change in BCVA of 2.5 (12.2) letters and CST of -119.1 (116.4) µm was observed at month 12. A 7.3 letter gain was observed in patients with baseline BCVA < 70 letters. Mean number (SD) of injections in year one was 6.4 (2.1). No significant adverse events were recorded., Conclusion: Year one results indicated that IVT-AFL was an effective treatment for DMO in standard of care UK clinical practice, maintaining or improving visual acuity in treatment-naive patients with good baseline visual acuity, despite some patients being undertreated versus the summary of product characteristics. These results also demonstrated the clinical importance and meaningful impact of diabetic retinopathy screening in the UK., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Owing to the increasing prevalence of diabetes, the workload related to diabetic macular oedema and proliferative diabetic retinopathy is rising, making it difficult for hospital eye services to meet demands., Objective: The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of a new pathway using multimodal imaging interpreted by ophthalmic graders to detect reactivation of diabetic macular oedema/proliferative diabetic retinopathy in previously treated patients., Design: This was a prospective, case-referent, cross-sectional diagnostic study., Setting: The setting was ophthalmic clinics in 13 NHS hospitals., Participants: Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with previously successfully treated diabetic macular oedema/proliferative diabetic retinopathy in one/both eyes in whom, at the time of enrolment, diabetic macular oedema/proliferative diabetic retinopathy could be active or inactive., Methods: For the ophthalmic grader pathway, review of the spectral domain optical coherence tomography scans to detect diabetic macular oedema, and seven-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study/ultra-wide field fundus images to detect proliferative diabetic retinopathy, by trained ophthalmic graders. For the current standard care pathway (reference standard), ophthalmologists examined patients face to face by slit-lamp biomicroscopy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy and, in addition, spectral domain optical coherence tomography imaging for diabetic macular oedema., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was sensitivity of the ophthalmic grader pathway to detect active diabetic macular oedema/proliferative diabetic retinopathy. The secondary outcomes were specificity, agreement between pathways, cost-consequences, acceptability and the proportion of patients requiring subsequent ophthalmologist assessment, unable to undergo imaging and with inadequate quality images/indeterminate findings. It was assumed for the main analysis that all patients in whom graders diagnosed active disease or were 'unsure' or images were 'ungradable' required examination by an ophthalmologist., Results: Eligible participants with active and inactive diabetic macular oedema (152 and 120 participants, respectively) and active and inactive proliferative diabetic retinopathy (111 and 170 participants, respectively) were recruited. Under the main analysis, graders had a sensitivity of 97% (142/147) (95% confidence interval 92% to 99%) and specificity of 31% (35/113) (95% confidence interval 23% to 40%) to detect diabetic macular oedema. For proliferative diabetic retinopathy, graders had a similar sensitivity and specificity using seven-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [sensitivity 85% (87/102), 95% confidence interval 77% to 91%; specificity 48% (77/160), 95% confidence interval 41% to 56%] or ultra-wide field imaging [sensitivity 83% (87/105), 95% confidence interval 75% to 89%; specificity 54% (86/160), 95% confidence interval 46% to 61%]. Participants attending focus groups expressed preference for face-to-face evaluations by ophthalmologists. In the ophthalmologists' absence, patients voiced the need for immediate feedback following grader's assessments, maintaining periodic evaluations by ophthalmologists. Graders and ophthalmologists were supportive of the new pathway. When compared with the reference standard (current standard pathway), the new grader pathway could save £1390 per 100 patients in the review of people with diabetic macular oedema and, depending on the imaging modality used, between £461 and £1189 per 100 patients in the review of people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy., Conclusions: For people with diabetic macular oedema, the ophthalmic grader pathway appears safe and cost saving. The sensitivity of the new pathway to detect active proliferative diabetic retinopathy was lower, but may still be considered acceptable for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy previously treated with laser. Suggestions from focus group discussions should be taken into consideration if the new pathway is introduced to ensure its acceptability to users., Limitations: Lack of fundus fluorescein angiography to confirm diagnosis of active proliferative diabetic retinopathy., Future Work: Could refinement of the new pathway increase its sensitivity to detect proliferative diabetic retinopathy? Could artificial intelligence be used for automated reading of images in this previously treated population?, Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10856638 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03490318., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 25, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) has evolved considerably over the past decade, with the availability of new technologies (diagnostic and therapeutic). As such, the existing Royal College of Ophthalmologists DR Guidelines (2013) are outdated, and to the best of our knowledge are not under revision at present. Furthermore, there are no other UK guidelines covering all available treatments, and there seems to be significant variation around the UK in the management of diabetic macular oedema (DMO). This manuscript provides a summary of reviews the pathogenesis of DR and DMO, including role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and non-VEGF cytokines, clinical grading/classification of DMO vis a vis current terminology (of centre-involving [CI-DMO], or non-centre involving [nCI-DMO], systemic risks and their management). The excellent UK DR Screening (DRS) service has continued to evolve and remains world-leading. However, challenges remain, as there are significant variations in equipment used, and reproducible standards of DMO screening nationally. The interphase between DRS and the hospital eye service can only be strengthened with further improvements. The role of modern technology including optical coherence tomography (OCT) and wide-field imaging, and working practices including virtual clinics and their potential in increasing clinic capacity and improving patient experiences and outcomes are discussed. Similarly, potential roles of home monitoring in diabetic eyes in the future are explored. The role of pharmacological (intravitreal injections [IVT] of anti-VEGFs and steroids) and laser therapies are summarised. Generally, IVT anti-VEGF are offered as first line pharmacologic therapy. As requirements of diabetic patients in particular patient groups may vary, including pregnant women, children, and persons with learning difficulties, it is important that DR management is personalised in such particular patient groups. First choice therapy needs to be individualised in these cases and may be intravitreal steroids rather than the standard choice of anti-VEGF agents. Some of these, but not all, are discussed in this document.

Objectives: This paper describes recommendations from a panel of UK retina experts on aflibercept in diabetic macular oedema (DMO)., Methods: A roundtable meeting was held in London, UK in March 2018. The meeting was sponsored by Bayer., Results: Recommendations are based on clinical experience and level 1 evidence. Clinical experience supports the evidence base, reinforcing that aflibercept should be initiated with intensive proactive dosing at 2 mg every 4 weeks. Most panel members use six initial 4-weekly doses as in Protocol T, rather than five initial monthly doses as recommended in the Summary of product characteristics (SmPC). After intensive proactive dosing, patients with a good response (meet Protocol T 'improvement' criteria ≥5-letter improvement in visual acuity [VA] and/or ≥10% improvement in central subfield thickness [CST] from baseline) but who are not yet stable should continue with 4-weekly aflibercept until stability is reached. Patients with a good response and stability should initiate monitor-and-extend (not in line with SmPC). Those with a sub-optimal response (meet 'improvement' criteria but with additional concerns e.g. fluid worsening on macular volume map) should continue with 4-weekly aflibercept but additional treatments should be considered (aflibercept is not licensed for combination treatment). For patients with no response (no change, or meeting Protocol T 'worsening' criteria [≥5-letter decrease in VA and/or ≥ 10% increase in CST] from baseline), switching to a non-anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment should be considered., Conclusions: Clinical experience reinforces that, when using aflibercept in DMO, the licensed posology or Protocol T regimens achieve the best outcomes.

Introduction: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) are the major causes of sight loss in people with diabetes. Due to the increased prevalence of diabetes, the workload related to these complications is increasing making it difficult for Hospital Eye Services (HSE) to meet demands., Methods and Analysis: Effectiveness of Multimodal imaging for the Evaluation of Retinal oedema And new vesseLs in Diabetic retinopathy (EMERALD) is a prospective, case-referent, cross-sectional diagnostic study. It aims at determining the diagnostic performance, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of a new form of surveillance for people with stable DMO and/or PDR, which entails multimodal imaging and image review by an ophthalmic grader, using the current standard of care (evaluation of patients in clinic by an ophthalmologist) as the reference standard. If safe, cost-effective and acceptable, this pathway could help HES by freeing ophthalmologist time. The primary outcome of EMERALD is sensitivity of the new surveillance pathway in detecting active DMO/PDR. Secondary outcomes include specificity, agreement between new and the standard care pathway, positive and negative likelihood ratios, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, proportion of patients requiring subsequent full clinical assessment, unable to undergo imaging, with inadequate quality images or indeterminate findings., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained for this study from the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (reference 17/NI/0124). Study results will be published as a Health Technology Assessment monograph, in peer-reviewed national and international journals and presented at national/international conferences and to patient groups., Trial Registration Number: NCT03490318 and ISRCTN:10856638., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NL, NW, AA-B, HM, DMcA, TA: none; CB: has been ad hoc advisor for Alcon, Bayer, Novartis, Alimera Sciences and Allergan; VC is a part-time employee of Boehringer Ingelheim International GmBH (BII), Germany; this study, however, is not being undertaken as part of the employment with BII and, thus, the content of this manuscript is not endorsed by BII. VC has also received speaker fees from Quantel Medical, France; SS has received research grants, travel feeds and attended advisory board meetings of Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Allergan, Heidelberg Engineering, Optos and Boehringer Ingelheim; DS acted as consultant to Alcon, attended advisory boards for Novartis and Bayer and received research funding from Bayer and Alcon. PS has attended Advisory Boards for Allergan, Roche, Boehringer and Bayer; his department has received Educational, Research or Audit Grants from Allergan, Novartis and Bayer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: To assess the impact of deprivation on diabetic retinopathy presentation and related treatment interventions, as observed within the UK hospital eye service., Methods: This is a multicentre, national diabetic retinopathy database study with anonymised data extraction across 22 centres from an electronic medical record system. The following were the inclusion criteria: all patients with diabetes and a recorded, structured diabetic retinopathy grade. The minimum data set included, for baseline, age and Index of Multiple Deprivation, based on residential postcode; and for all time points, visual acuity, ETDRS grading of retinopathy and maculopathy, and interventions (laser, intravitreal therapies and surgery). The main  outcome measures were (1) visual acuity and binocular visual state, and (2) presence of sight-threatening complications and need for early treatment., Results: 79 775 patients met the inclusion criteria. Deprivation was associated with later presentation in patients with diabetic eye disease: the OR of being sight-impaired at entry into the hospital eye service (defined as 6/18 to better than 3/60 in the better seeing eye) was 1.29 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.39) for the most deprived decile vs 0.77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.86) for the least deprived decile; the OR for being severely sight-impaired (3/60 or worse in the better seeing eye) was 1.17 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.55) for the most deprived decile vs 0.88 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.27) for the least deprived decile (reference=fifth decile in all cases). There is also variation in sight-threatening complications at presentation and treatment undertaken: the least deprived deciles had lower chance of having a tractional retinal detachment (OR=0.48 and 0.58 for deciles 9 and 10, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90 and 0.29 to 1.09, respectively); in terms of accessing treatment, the rate of having a vitrectomy was lowest in the most deprived cohort (OR=0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.58)., Conclusions: This large real-world study suggests that first presentation at a hospital eye clinic with visual loss or sight-threatening diabetic eye disease is associated with deprivation. These initial hospital visits represent the first opportunities to receive treatment and to formally engage with support services. Such patients are more likely to be sight-impaired or severely sight-impaired at presentation, and may need additional resources to engage with the hospital eye services over complex treatment schedules., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CAE has received consultancy fees from Medisoft. LD has undertaken advisory board work previously for Novartis, Bayer, Allergan, Alimera, Alcon, Oraya and Thrombogenics; and received speaker fees from Bayer, Novartis and Alimera, and travel grants from Novartis, Bayer and Allergan. HE has undertaken advisory board work for Novartis and Bayer; received speaker fees from Novartis, and travel grants from Novartis, Bayer and Allergan. RM has undertaken advisory board work for Alimera; received speaker fees from Bayer and Alcon; and obtained travel and educational grants from Novartis and Bayer. UC has undertaken advisory board work for Allergan, Bayer, Novartis and Roche; and received speaker fees from Heidelberg and Zeiss. SP has undertaken advisory board work and received travel grants from Bayer, Alimera, Allergan and Novartis. DPC has received speaker fees from Allergan and Santen. DAS has received consultancy fees from Big Picture Medical; speaker fees from Bayer, Novartis, Allergan and Haag-Streit; and travel grants from Bayer and Allergan. AnL has received travel grants from Bayer and Allergan. CB has undertaken advisory board work for Alimera, Bayer and Novartis, and received travel support/speaker fees from Alimera, Bayer and Novartis. FG has undertaken advisory board work for Novartis, Bayer, Allergan, Alimera, Alcon and Roche; received speaker fees from Bayer, Novartis, Alimera and Allergan, and travel grants from Bayer and Allergan. RK has undertaken advisory board work for Alimera; received speaker fees from Novartis, and travel grants from Novartis, Bayer, Alimera and Allergan. TA has undertaken advisory board work for Bayer; received speaker fees from Novartis, and travel grants from Novartis and Bayer. HP has received travel grants from Bayer and Alimera. RA has received travel grants from Novartis, Bayer and Allergan. VK has undertaken advisory board work for Polyphotonix and received speaker fees from Heidelberg. ND has undertaken advisory board work for Novartis and Allergan; received speaker fees for Novartis and Bayer; and received travel grants from Novartis, Allergan and Bayer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In the UK, macular laser is the treatment of choice for people with diabetic macular oedema with central retinal subfield thickness (CST) < 400 μm, as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. It remains unclear whether subthreshold micropulse laser is superior and should replace standard threshold laser for the treatment of eligible patients., Methods: DIAMONDS is a pragmatic, multicentre, allocation-concealed, randomised, equivalence, double-masked clinical trial that aims to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser compared with standard threshold laser, for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema with CST < 400 μm. The primary outcome is the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to month 24 post treatment. Secondary outcomes (at 24 months) include change in binocular best corrected visual acuity; CST; mean deviation of the Humphrey 10-2 visual field; change in percentage of people meeting driving standards; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 and VisQoL scores; incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained; side effects; number of laser treatments and use of additional therapies. The primary statistical analysis will be per protocol rather than intention-to-treat analysis because the latter increases type I error in non-inferiority or equivalence trials. The difference between lasers for change in best-corrected visual acuity (using 95% CI) will be compared to the permitted maximum difference of five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. Linear and logistic regression models will be used to compare outcomes between treatment groups. A Markov-model-based cost-utility analysis will extend beyond the trial period to estimate longer-term cost-effectiveness., Discussion: This trial will determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser, when compared with standard threshold laser, for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema, the main cause of sight loss in people with diabetes mellitus., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN17742985 . Registered on 19 May 2017 (retrospectively registered).

Background and Objective: Visual outcomes of the FAME study (0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide [FAc]) and Protocol I (0.5 mg ranibizumab plus deferred laser) were compared using the area under the curve (AUC) analysis method., Patients and Methods: Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) data collected during a period of 3 years of follow-up for patients enrolled in FAME or Protocol I were used to calculate AUC of the change in BCVA over a time curve., Results: In the overall population, there was a greater treatment effect for ranibizumab plus deferred laser compared with FAc. However, for subgroups of pseudophakic eyes, eyes with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME), and pseudophakic eyes with chronic DME, ranibizumab plus deferred laser and FAc were not found to be significantly different. The ranibizumab group received a median of 14 injections during a 36-month period compared with a mean of 1.3 injections in the FAc group., Conclusion: In pseudophakic and chronic DME subgroups, FAc was comparable to ranibizumab plus deferred laser with fewer injections. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:698-706.]., (Copyright 2018, SLACK Incorporated.)

Purpose: To report functional and morphologic outcomes, based on diabetic macular edema (DME) chronicity and baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), from a subanalysis of the fluocinolone acetonide for macular edema (FAME) trials., Methods: Patients were categorized by DME duration (nonchronic [ncDME] or chronic [cDME] DME) and three nonexclusive baseline vision strata. Anatomic and visual acuity VA outcomes of these cohorts were compared with treatment assignment., Results: For all patients with ncDME and cDME who received sham control, 27.8% and 13.4%, respectively, gained ≥15 BCVA letters, whereas 22.3% and 34.0% of 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc)-treated patients, respectively, gained ≥15 BCVA letters. Among patients with ncDME who received sham control, as baseline vision decreased, the percentage gaining ≥15 BCVA letters increased; however, among those with cDME, the percentage gaining ≥15 BCVA letters did not change as baseline vision decreased. Conversely, among 0.2 μg/day FAc-treated patients, the percentage gaining ≥15 BCVA letters increased with decreasing baseline vision, regardless of DME chronicity. Anatomical outcomes were similar within treatment arms, regardless of the DME duration., Conclusion: Patients with cDME and poor baseline vision who were exposed to low-dose FAc experienced BCVA improvements that were not observed in a similar group from the sham-control arm. These data support the multifactorial pathogenesis of cDME.

This paper identifies best practice recommendations for managing diabetes and sight-threatening diabetic eye disease. The authors provide an update for ophthalmologists and allied healthcare professionals on key aspects of diabetes management, supported by a review of the pertinent literature, and recommend practice principles for optimal patient management in treating visual impairment due to diabetic eye disease. In people with diabetes, early optimal glycaemic control reduces the long-term risk of both microvascular and macrovascular complications. The authors propose more can and should be done to maximise metabolic control, promote appropriate behavioural modifications and encourage timely treatment intensification when indicated to ameliorate diabetes-related complications. All people with diabetes should be screened for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy promptly and regularly. It is shown that attitudes towards treatment adherence in diabetic macular oedema appear to mirror patients' views and health behaviours towards the management of their own diabetes. Awareness of diabetic macular oedema remains low among people with diabetes, who need access to education early in their disease about how to manage their diabetes to delay progression and possibly avoid eye-related complications. Ophthalmologists and allied healthcare professionals play a vital role in multidisciplinary diabetes management and establishment of dedicated diabetic macular oedema clinics is proposed. A broader understanding of the role of the diabetes specialist nurse may strengthen the case for comprehensive integrated care in ophthalmic practice. The recommendations are based on round table presentations and discussions held in London, UK, September 2016.

PURPOSE Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a leading cause for visual impairment in the working age population in the UK. Ranibizumab has been shown to be effective in treatment of DMO in studies based on mainly Caucasian populations. This study reports the 12-month outcome in a cohort of South Asian subjects with DMO treated with ranibizumab.MethodsDMO in 51 eyes of 41 South Asian patients was treated with ranibizumab 0.5 mg according to the modified DRCRnet protocol I. Visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were recorded at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results were compared for eyes with different baseline visual acuities and different baseline macular thicknesses.RESULTS Over the 12-month period, the mean ETDRS VA increased from 55.3±13.4 letters to 63.8±15.2 letters for all eyes. At 12 months, 70.6% eyes gained 5 or more letters acuity and 17.6% eyes gained 15 letters or more. During the same period, the mean CMT decreased from 532±129 to 318±136 μm. Eyes that had received previous laser treatments had a mean letter gain of 9.2 letters, compared with 8.5 for all eyes at 12 months.CONCLUSIONS Ranibizumab 0.5 mg is safe and effective at reversing vision loss due to DMO in patients of South Asian origin at 12 months. Ranibizumab treatment appears to be effective in patients with longstanding DMO who received prior laser treatments. Further studies are needed to define the long-term outcome in patients of different ethnicity and DMO.

Aims: To determine the effects of argon green panretinal laser photocoagulation on retinal nerve fibre layer thickness, threshold visual fields, and Estermann full-binocular visual fields over time in diabetic retinopathy., Method: Prospective, pilot clinical study. Time-domain optical coherence tomography (TD-OCT) of the optic nerve head and 24-2 SITA-Fast Humphrey/Estermann visual fields (HVF, EVFs) recorded at baseline, 10 weeks, and 6 months post laser. Quantitative field analysis of central 10 degrees, 24 degrees, and binocular visual fields., Results: A total of 10 eye samples were subjected to uncomplicated multiple-session 100 ms panretinal laser using 2000 burns, 300-microm spot, and mean power of 136 mW (SD+/-39.3). TD-OCT detected and quantified an increase in mean retinal nerve fibre layer thickness at 10 weeks (+8 microm; P<0.05) and progressive thinning at 6 months (-4 microm; P<0.05) compared with baseline. Mean threshold sensitivities, and 10 degrees and 24 degrees HVF improved at both time points in the majority (9 of 10 and 8 of 10) of patients. EVFs showed no significant change with treatment., Conclusions: This pilot study shows that conventional argon laser panretinal photocoagulation may increase the retinal nerve fibre layer thickness in the short term, presumably related to laser-induced axonal injury, with progressive thinning of nerve fibre layer over the long term. The 10 degrees and 24 degrees visual fields improved significantly after laser with no adverse effects on the UK standard driving fields.