Diabetic Eye Disease

PURPOSE: Assess follow-up treatment and clinical outcomes at 5 years in eyes initially treated with anti-VEGF therapy for center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) in a 2-year randomized clinical trial. DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with diabetic macular edema (DME) and visual acuity (VA) 20/32 to 20/320 enrolled in DRCR.net Protocol T with visits 5 years after randomization (3 years after Protocol T completion). METHODS: Participants were assigned randomly to aflibercept, bevacizumab, or ranibizumab with protocol-defined follow-up and re-treatment for 2 years. Thereafter, participants were managed at clinician discretion and recalled for a 5-year visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment, VA letter score, and central subfield thickness (CST). RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent (317/463) of eligible participants completed the 5-year visit. Between years 2 and 5, 68% (217/317) of study eyes received at least 1 anti-VEGF treatment (median, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 0-12). At 5 years, mean VA improved from baseline by 7.4 letters (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-9.0) but decreased by 4.7 letters (95% CI, 3.3-6.0) between 2 and 5 years. When baseline VA was 20/50 to 20/320, mean 5-year VA was 11.9 letters (95% CI, 9.3-14.5) better than baseline but 4.8 letters (95% CI, 2.5-7.0) worse than 2 years. When baseline VA was 20/32 to 20/40, mean 5-year VA was 3.2 letters (95% CI, 1.4-5.0) better than baseline but 4.6 letters (95% CI, 3.1-6.1) worse than 2 years. Mean CST decreased from baseline to 5 years by 154 μm (95% CI, 142-166) and was stable between 2 and 5 years (-1 μm; 95% CI, -12 to 9). CONCLUSIONS: Among the two-thirds of eligible Protocol T participants who completed a 5-year visit, mean VA improved from baseline to 5 years without protocol-defined treatment after follow-up ended at 2 years. Although mean retinal thickness was similar at 2 and 5 years, mean VA worsened during this period. Additional investigation into strategies to improve long-term outcomes in eyes with DME seems warranted to determine if VA can be better maintained with different management approaches.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between Medicaid expansion and diabetic dilated eye examinations. DESIGN: A retrospective difference in differences (DiD) analysis using individual-level survey response data from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2017. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 52 392 survey responses from 50 states and the District of Columbia between 2009 and 2017. Responders were adults aged 18 to 64 years reporting a previous diagnosis of diabetes and a household income below 138% of the US federal poverty line (FPL). METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were used to identify survey responders who were asked about the presence of dilated eye examinations from years before and after Medicaid expansion implementation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The DiD in proportion of dilated eye examinations among diabetic persons aged 18 to 64 years with household incomes below 138% of the FPL between states that did and did not implement Medicaid expansion. RESULTS: Implementation of Medicaid expansion policies was associated with a 1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.8 to 6.4; P = 0.61), 6.3% (95% CI, 1.3-11.3; P = 0.016), 4.1% (95% CI, -0.8 to 9.0; P = 0.11), and 2.3% (95% CI, -1.6 to 6.2; P = 0.23) increase in the proportion of diabetic persons aged 18 to 64 years with incomes below 138% of the FPL receiving a dilated eye examination within the past year due to Medicaid expansion 1, 2, 3, and 4 cumulative years after expansion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion policies were significantly associated with an increase in dilated eye examination rates within the first 2 years after implementation. However, this increase did not persist beyond this period, with nonsignificant increases 3 and 4 cumulative years after implementation. Healthcare policymakers should be aware that additional measures beyond expanding insurance coverage may be necessary to increase and sustain the rate of dilated eye examinations among diabetic populations.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a quantitative approach to assessment of the severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR) lesions on ultrawide field (UWF) images can provide new parameters to predict progression to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). METHODS: One hundred forty six eyes from 73 participants with DR and 4 years of follow-up data were included in this post hoc analysis, which was based on a cohort of 100 diabetic patients enrolled in a previously published prospective, comparative study of UWF imaging at the Joslin Diabetes Center. Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Score level was determined at baseline and 4-year follow-up visits using mydriatic 7-standard field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) photographs. All individual DR lesions (hemorrhage [H], microaneurysm [ma], cotton wool spot [CWS], intraretinal microvascular abnormality [IRMA]) were manually segmented on stereographic projected UWF. For each lesion type, the frequency/number, surface area, and distances from the optic nerve head (ONH) were computed. These quantitative parameters were compared between eyes that progressed to PDR in 4 years and eyes that did not progress. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify parameters that were associated with an increased risk for progression to PDR. RESULTS: A total of 146 eyes of 73 subjects were included in the final analysis. The mean age of the study cohort was 53.1 years, and 42 (56.8%) subjects were female. The number and surface area of H/ma's and CWSs were significantly (P ≤ .05) higher in eyes that progressed to PDR compared with eyes that did not progress by 4 years. Similarly, H/ma's and CWSs were located further away from the ONH (ie, more peripheral) in eyes that progressed (P < .05). DR lesion parameters that conferred a statistically significant increased risk for proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the multivariate model included hemorrhage area (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-5.53), and greater distance of hemorrhages from the ONH (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.97-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of DR lesions on UWF images identifies new risk parameters for progression to PDR including the surface area of hemorrhages and the distance of hemorrhages from the ONH. Although these risk factors will need to be confirmed in larger, prospective studies, they highlight the potential for quantitative lesion analysis to inform the design of a more precise and complete staging system for diabetic retinopathy severity in the future. NOTE: Publication of this article is sponsored by the American Ophthalmological Society.

Although the prevalence of all stages of diabetic retinopathy has been declining since 1980 in populations with improved diabetes control, the crude prevalence of visual impairment and blindness caused by diabetic retinopathy worldwide increased between 1990 and 2015, largely because of the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Screening for diabetic retinopathy is essential to detect referable cases that need timely full ophthalmic examination and treatment to avoid permanent visual loss. In the past few years, personalised screening intervals that take into account several risk factors have been proposed, with good cost-effectiveness ratios. However, resources for nationwide screening programmes are scarce in many countries. New technologies, such as scanning confocal ophthalmology with ultrawide field imaging and handheld mobile devices, teleophthalmology for remote grading, and artificial intelligence for automated detection and classification of diabetic retinopathy, are changing screening strategies and improving cost-effectiveness. Additionally, emerging evidence suggests that retinal imaging could be useful for identifying individuals at risk of cardiovascular disease or cognitive impairment, which could expand the role of diabetic retinopathy screening beyond the prevention of sight-threatening disease.

Contributors The following document and appendices represent the third edition of the . These guidelines were developed by the Diabetic Retinopathy Telehealth Practice Guidelines Working Group. This working group consisted of a large number of subject matter experts in clinical applications for telehealth in ophthalmology. The editorial committee consisted of Mark B. Horton, OD, MD, who served as working group chair and Christopher J. Brady, MD, MHS, and Jerry Cavallerano, OD, PhD, who served as cochairs. The writing committees were separated into seven different categories. They are as follows: 1.Clinical/operational: Jerry Cavallerano, OD, PhD (Chair), Gail Barker, PhD, MBA, Christopher J. Brady, MD, MHS, Yao Liu, MD, MS, Siddarth Rathi, MD, MBA, Veeral Sheth, MD, MBA, Paolo Silva, MD, and Ingrid Zimmer-Galler, MD. 2.Equipment: Veeral Sheth, MD (Chair), Mark B. Horton, OD, MD, Siddarth Rathi, MD, MBA, Paolo Silva, MD, and Kristen Stebbins, MSPH. 3.Quality assurance: Mark B. Horton, OD, MD (Chair), Seema Garg, MD, PhD, Yao Liu, MD, MS, and Ingrid Zimmer-Galler, MD. 4.Glaucoma: Yao Liu, MD, MS (Chair) and Siddarth Rathi, MD, MBA. 5.Retinopathy of prematurity: Christopher J. Brady, MD, MHS (Chair) and Ingrid Zimmer-Galler, MD. 6.Age-related macular degeneration: Christopher J. Brady, MD, MHS (Chair) and Ingrid Zimmer-Galler, MD. 7.Autonomous and computer assisted detection, classification and diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy: Michael Abramoff, MD, PhD (Chair), Michael F. Chiang, MD, and Paolo Silva, MD.

PURPOSE: To investigate clinical baseline characteristics and optical coherence tomography biomarkers predicting visual loss during observation in eyes with diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and good baseline visual acuity (VA). METHODS: A sub-analysis of a 12-month, retrospective study, including patients with baseline VA ≤0.1 logMAR (≥20/25 Snellen) and centre-involving DMO. The primary outcome measure was the correlation between baseline characteristics and VA loss ≥10 letters during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 249 eyes were included in the initial study, of which 147 eyes were observed and 80 eyes received anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment at baseline. Visual acuity (VA) loss ≥10 letters occurred in 21.8% (observed cohort) and in 24.3% (treated cohort), respectively. Within observed eyes, presence of hyperreflective foci [HRF; odds ratio (OR): 3.18, p = 0.046], and disorganization of inner retina layers (DRIL; OR: 2.71, p = 0.026) were associated with a higher risk of VA loss ≥10 letters. In observed eyes with a combined presence of HRF, DRIL and ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption, the risk of VA loss was further increased (OR: 3.86, p = 0.034). In eyes with combined presence of DRIL, HRF and EZ disruption, risk of VA loss was 46.7% (7/15 eyes) in the observed cohort, and 26.3% (5/19 eyes) in the treated cohort (p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Patients with DMO and good baseline VA, managed by observation, are of increased risk for VA loss if DRIL, HRF and EZ disruption are present at baseline. Earlier treatment with anti-VEGF in these patients may potentially decrease the risk of VA loss at 12 months.

PURPOSE: To compare different scan protocols of wide-field swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) for the detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR) lesions. DESIGN: Comparison of diagnostic approaches. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was conducted at Massachusetts Eye and Ear from December 2018 to July 2019. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), and diabetic patients without DR were included. All patients were imaged using SS-OCTA using the following scan protocol: 3- × 3-mm Angio centered on the fovea; 6- × 6-mm Angio centered on the fovea and the optic disc; 15- × 9-mm Montage; and 12- × 12-mm Angio centered on the fovea and the optic disc. Images were independently evaluated by 2 graders for the presence or absence of DR lesions including microaneurysms, intraretinal microvascular abnormalities, neovascularization, nonperfusion areas, venous looping, and hard exudates. All statistical analyses were performed using commercial software. RESULTS: A total of 176 eyes in 119 participants were included in the study. The detection rate of neovascularization on 6- × 6-mm Angio centered on the fovea was approximately one-half that on 15- × 9-mm Montage (P < .05) imaging. Combining 6- × 6-mm Angio imaging centered on the fovea and the optic disc could increase the rate to approximately two-thirds (P < .05). The 12- × 12-mm Angio imaging centered on the combination of fovea and optic disc had detection rates comparable to those of 15- × 9-mm Montage imaging for all DR lesions (P > .05). For microaneurysms, 6- × 6-mm Angio had better performance than 15- × 9-mm Montage (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Wide-field SS-OCTA images were useful in detecting DR lesions. The 12- × 12-mm Angio imaging centered on the fovea and on the optic disc may be an optimal balance between speed and efficacy for evaluation of DR in clinical practice.

The introduction of ultrawide field imaging has allowed the visualization of approximately 82% of the total retinal area compared to only 30% using 7-standard field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy (ETDRS) photography. This substantially wider field of view, while useful in many retinal vascular diseases, is particularly important in diabetic retinopathy where eyes with predominantly peripheral lesions or PPL have been shown to have significantly greater progression rates compared to eyes without PPL. In telemedicine settings, ultrawide field imaging has substantially reduced image ungradable rates and increased rate of disease identification allowing care to be delivered more effectively. Furthermore, the use of ultrawide field fluorescein angiography allows the visualization of significantly more diabetic retinal lesions and allows more accurate quantification of total retinal nonperfusion, with potential implications in the management of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. The focus of this paper is to review the current role of ultrawide field imaging in diabetic retinopathy and its possible future role in innovations for retinal image analysis such as artificial intelligence and vessel caliber measurements.

AIMS: To compare microaneurysm (MA) counts using ultrawide field colour images (UWF-CI) and ultrawide field fluorescein angiography (UWF-FA). METHODS: Retrospective study including patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus receiving UWF-FA and UWF-CI within 2 weeks. MAs were manually counted in individual Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) and extended UWF zones. Fields with MAs ≥20 determined diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity (0 fields=mild, 1-3=moderate, ≥4=severe). UWF-FA and UWF-CI agreement was determined and UWF-CI DR severity sensitivity analysis adjusting for UWF-FA MA counts performed. RESULTS: In 193 patients (288 eyes), 2.4% had no DR, 29.9% mild non-proliferative DR (NPDR), 32.6% moderate (NPDR), 22.9% severe NPDR and 12.2% proliferative DR. UWF-FA MA counts were 3.5-fold higher (p<0.001) than UWF-CI counts overall, 3.2x-fold higher in ETDRS fields (p<0.001) and 5.3-fold higher in extended ETDRS fields (p<0.001) and higher in type 1 versus type 2 diabetes (p<0.001). In eyes with NPDR on UWF-CI (n=246), UWF-FA images had 1.6x-3.5x more fields with ≥20 MAs (p<0.001). Fair agreement existed between imaging modalities (k=0.221-0.416). In ETDRS fields, DR severity agreement increased from k=0.346 to 0.600 when dividing UWF-FA counts by a factor of 3, followed by rapid decline in agreement thereafter. Total UWF area agreement increased from k=0.317 to 0.565 with an adjustment factor of either 4 or 5. CONCLUSIONS: UWF-FA detects threefold to fivefold more MAs than UWF-CI and identifies 1.6-3.5-fold more fields affecting DR severity. Differences exist at all DR severity levels, thus limiting direct comparison between the modalities. However, correcting UWF-FA MA counts substantially improves DR severity agreement between the modalities.

Importance: Among eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) and good visual acuity (VA), randomized clinical trial results showed no difference in VA loss between initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, initial focal/grid laser plus aflibercept only if VA decreased, or prompt aflibercept. Understanding the initial observation approach is relevant to patient management. Objective: To assess the DRCR Retina Network protocol-defined approach and outcomes of initial observation with aflibercept only if VA worsened. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc secondary analyses of a randomized clinical trial of the DRCR Retina Network Protocol V that included 91 US and Canadian sites from November 2013 to September 2018. Participants were adults (n = 236) with type 1 or 2 diabetes, 1 study eye with CI-DME, and VA letter score at least 79 (Snellen equivalent, 20/25 or better) assigned to initial observation. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to November 2019. Interventions: Initial observation and follow-up with aflibercept only for VA loss of at least 10 letters from baseline at 1 visit or 5 to 9 letters at 2 consecutive visits. Follow-up occurred at 8 weeks and then every 16 weeks unless VA or optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness worsened. Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether individuals received aflibercept. Results: Among 236 eyes in 236 individuals (149 [63%] male; median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 53-67 years]) randomly assigned to initial observation, 80 (34%) were treated with aflibercept during 2 years of follow-up. At 2 years, the median VA letter score was 86.0 (interquartile range, 89.0-81.0; median Snellen equivalent, 20/20 [20/16-20/25]). Receipt of aflibercept was more likely in eyes with baseline central subfield thickness at least 300 μm (Zeiss-Stratus equivalent) vs less than 300 μm (45% vs 26%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.98 [95% CI, 1.26-3.13], continuous P = .005), moderately severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study retinopathy severity level 47) and above vs moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (retinopathy severity level 43) and below (51% vs 27%; HR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.42-3.47], ordinal P < .001), and among participants whose nonstudy eye received DME treatment within 4 months of randomization vs not (52% vs 25%; HR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.64-3.99], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Most eyes managed with initial observation plus aflibercept only if VA worsened maintained good vision at 2 years and did not require aflibercept for VA loss. However, the eyes in the trial were approximately twice as likely to receive aflibercept for VA loss if they had greater baseline central subfield thickness, worse diabetic retinopathy severity level, or a nonstudy eye receiving treatment for DME. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909791.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In clinical trials, participant retention is critical to reduce bias and maintain statistical power for hypothesis testing. Within a multi-center clinical trial of diabetic retinopathy, we investigated whether regular phone calls to participants from the coordinating center improved long-term participant retention. METHODS: Among 305 adults in the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Retina Network Protocol S randomized trial, 152 participants were randomly assigned to receive phone calls at baseline, 6 months, and annually through 3 years (annual contact group) while 153 participants were assigned to receive a phone call at baseline only (baseline contact group). All participants could be contacted if visits were missed. The main outcomes were visit completion, excluding deaths, at 2 years (the primary outcome time point) and at 5 years (the final time point). RESULTS: At baseline, 77% (117 of 152) of participants in the annual contact group and 76% (116 of 153) in the baseline contact group were successfully contacted. Among participants in the annual contact group active at each annual visit (i.e. not dropped from the study or deceased), 85% (125 of 147), 79% (108 of 136), and 88% (110 of 125) were contacted successfully by telephone around the time of the 1-, 2-, and 3-year visits, respectively. In the annual and baseline contact groups, completion rates for the 2-year primary outcome visit were 88% (129 of 147) versus 87% (125 of 144), respectively, with a risk ratio of 1.01 (95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.10,  = .81). At 5 years, the final study visit, participant completion rates were 67% (96 of 144) versus 66% (88 of 133) with a risk ratio of 1.01 (95% confidence interval = 0.85-1.19,  = .93). At 2 years, the completion rate of participants successfully contacted at baseline was 89% (202 of 226) versus 80% (52 of 65) among those not contacted successfully (risk ratio = 1.12, 95% confidence interval = 0.98-1.27,  = .09); at 5 years, the completion percentages by baseline contact success were 69% (148 of 213) versus 56% (36 of 64; risk ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval = 0.98-1.56,  = .08). CONCLUSION: Regular phone calls from the coordinating center to participants during follow-up in this randomized clinical trial did not improve long-term participant retention.

p p p

PURPOSE: To investigate whether anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) for diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) increases the risk of traction retinal detachment (TRD) among eyes with PDR. METHODS: Pooled analysis of PDR eyes from Protocols I, J, N, S, or T with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study level ≥61 (prompt vitrectomy was not planned) randomly assigned to the control group (laser photocoagulation, sham, or intravitreal saline; 396 eyes) or anti-VEGF (487 eyes). The primary outcome was investigator-identified TRD within 1 year of randomization. RESULTS: The 1-year cumulative probability of TRD was 6.8% (95% confidence interval: 4.6%-9.9%, 25 events) in control-group eyes and 4.8% (95% confidence interval: 3.2%-7.3%, 22 events) in anti-VEGF group eyes (hazard ratio = 0.95 [95% confidence interval: 0.54-1.66, P = 0.86]). The cumulative probability of vitrectomy for TRD was 4.4% (16 events) in control-group eyes and 2.2% (9 events) in anti-VEGF group eyes (P = 0.19). Percentage with TRD and vitrectomy for TRD were similar within strata of diabetic retinopathy severity. CONCLUSION: These findings do not support the hypothesis that anti-VEGF therapy for diabetic macular edema or PDR increases the risk of TRD among eyes with PDR similar to those enrolled in five DRCR Retina Network protocols for which prompt vitrectomy was not planned.