4.7 Article

Progression of Diabetes Retinal Status Within Community Screening Programs and Potential Implications for Screening Intervals

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 488-494

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc14-1778

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Health Service Diabetic Eye Screening Programme
  2. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment [10/66/01]
  3. Scottish Diabetes Retinal Screening Programme
  4. National Institute for Health Research [10/66/01] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available