Search

Objective: There are very few reports on the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in children and youth with type-1 diabetes (T1D). Studies have also found very low rates of referral for DR screening in children and youth with T1D. We conducted this study to determine the prevalence of DR, to study the reliability of ISPAD screening recommendations and to identify predictors of DR, its progression and regression in Indian children and youth with T1D. Methods: This study included 882 children and youth with T1D. Demographic data, anthropometry, blood pressure, sexual maturity rating, ophthalmological examination (slit lamp for cataract) and biochemical measurements were performed using standard protocols. Fundus images were captured using the Forus Health 3netra classic digital non-mydriatic fundus camera by the same experienced operator. De-identified images were assessed by a senior grader and ophthalmologist (Belfast Ophthalmic Reading Center). Severity of DR was graded as per the UK National Health Service (NHS) DR classification scale. Result: We report 6.4% and 0.2% prevalence of DR and cataract in Indian children and youth with T1D, respectively. All the subjects with DR had early non-proliferative DR. We report that amongst subjects with DR, only 2 subjects were aged less than 11 years and had duration of illness less than 2 years. Presence of hypertension and older age were significant predictors of DR (P <.05). Subjects with DR had significantly higher triglyceride concentrations (P <.05), of these, 6.9% had progression and 2.9% had regression at 1 year follow up; the change in glycaemic control was a significant positive predictor of progression of DR (P <.05). None of the participants included in the study progressed to develop sight-threatening DR. Conclusion: DR is not uncommon in Indian children and youth with T1D, thus screening for DR needs to be initiated early, particularly in older individuals with higher disease duration. Controlling blood pressure and triglyceride concentrations may prevent occurrence of DR. Improving glycaemic control may prevent progression of DR in Indian children and youth with T1D. Plain Language Summary: Diabetic retinopathy in Indian children with Type 1 Diabetes We found that 6.4% and 0.2% Indian children and youth with type-1 diabetes had diabetic retinopathy and cataract respectively. We report that amongst subjects with DR, only 2 subjects were aged less than 11 years and had duration of illness less than 2 years. Thus, International Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) screening criteria must be implemented by all centres to avoid missing cases. Presence of high blood pressure, high triglyceride levels and older age were significant predictors of DR. Of the subjects with DR, 6.9% had progression and 2.9% had regression at 1 year follow up; the change in glycaemic control was a significant positive predictor of progression of DR. None of the participants included in the study progressed to develop sight-threatening DR. DR is not uncommon in Indian children and youth with T1D, hence, screening for DR needs to be initiated early, particularly in older individuals with higher disease duration. Controlling blood pressure and triglyceride concentrations may prevent occurrence of DR. Improving glycaemic control may prevent progression of DR in Indian children and youth with T1D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) appears capable of detecting diabetic retinopathy (DR) with a high degree of accuracy in adults; however, there are few studies in children and young adults. Methods: Children and young adults (3-26 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were screened at the Dhaka BIRDEM-2 hospital, Bangladesh. All gradable fundus images were uploaded to Cybersight AI for interpretation. Two main outcomes were considered at a patient level: 1) Any DR, defined as mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR or more severe; and 2) Referable DR, defined as moderate NPDR or more severe. Diagnostic test performance comparing Orbis International's Cybersight AI with the reference standard, a fully qualified optometrist certified in DR grading, was assessed using the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. Results: Among 1274 participants (53.1% female, mean age 16.7 years), 19.4% (n = 247) had any DR according to AI. For referable DR, 2.35% (n = 30) were detected by AI. The sensitivity and specificity of AI for any DR were 75.5% (CI 69.7-81.3%) and 91.8% (CI 90.2-93.5%) respectively, and for referable DR, these values were 84.2% (CI 67.8-100%) and 98.9% (CI 98.3%-99.5%). The MCC, AUC-ROC and the AUC-PR for referable DR were 63.4, 91.2 and 76.2% respectively. AI was most successful in accurately classifying younger children with shorter duration of diabetes. Conclusions: Cybersight AI accurately detected any DR and referable DR among children and young adults, despite its algorithms having been trained on adults. The observed high specificity is particularly important to avoid over-referral in low-resource settings. AI may be an effective tool to reduce demands on scarce physician resources for the care of children with diabetes in low-resource settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To characterise continuous glucose monitor and flash glucose monitor use and related issues (both positive and negative) in the population of children and young people living with type 1 diabetes in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT), Northern Ireland. Methods: Four focus groups were conducted in the SHSCT with people with type 1 diabetes and their families, to assess opinions of diabetes technology. In addition, questionnaires were distributed to diabetes specialist nurses (DSNs), young people and their families about use and access to diabetes technology. Results: Questionnaires were completed by 68 children, young people (0–18 years) and their parents/guardians. Nearly all (98.5%) had access to their own diabetes related data, and 70.6% used diabetes data systems, for example, Libreview. Most of those using these systems found them beneficial and easy for daily use and clinical review. Most DSNs (83.9%) agreed that the systems were easy to use, and 82.3% were confident in interpreting the data accurately. DSNs felt virtual review was beneficial in over half of young people with 62.9% advising changes to diabetes management based on the data. Focus groups participants deemed diabetes technology a 'gamechanger' and 'lifechanging'. Some drawbacks included 'disruptive' alarms, self‐confidence issues, visible diabetes technology and problems in school. Conclusions: Most young people, their families and healthcare professionals reported they were confident in interpreting diabetes data and technology was easy to use. Diabetes technology could improve access to care through virtual clinics, improve clinical outcomes and enhance quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) can reduce oedema, improve vision, and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO. In the previous update of this review, we found moderate-quality evidence that, at 12 months, aflibercept was slightly more effective than ranibizumab and bevacizumab for improving vision in people with DMO, although the difference may have been clinically insignificant (less than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), or five Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, or one ETDRS line)., Objectives: The objective of this updated review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in RCTs at longer followup (24 months)., Search Methods: We searched various electronic databases on 8 July 2022., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham, or no treatment in people with DMO., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods for pairwise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis (NMA) methods. We used the Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We used the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) web application to grade the certainty of the evidence., Main Results: We included 23 studies (13 with industry funding) that enrolled 3513 people with DMO (median central retinal thickness (CRT) 460 microns, interquartile range (IQR) 424 to 482) and moderate vision loss (median best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.48 logMAR, IQR 0.42 to 0.55. One study that investigated ranibizumab versus sham and one study that mainly enrolled people with subclinical DMO and normal BCVA were not suitable for inclusion in the efficacy NMA. Consistent with the previous update of this review, we used ranibizumab as the reference drug for efficacy, and control (including laser, observation, and sham) as the reference for systemic safety. Eight trials provided data on the primary outcome (change in BCVA at 24 months, in logMAR: lower is better). We found no evidence of a difference between the following interventions and ranibizumab alone: aflibercept (mean difference (MD) -0.05 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.02; moderate certainty); bevacizumab (MD -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10; low certainty), brolucizumab (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07; low certainty), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.10; low certainty), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09; very low certainty). We also analysed BCVA change at 12 months, finding moderate-certainty evidence of increased efficacy with brolucizumab (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95%CI -0.10 to -0.03 logMAR), faricimab (MD -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05), and aflibercept (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95 % CI -0.10 to -0.04) compared to ranibizumab alone, but the difference could be clinically insignificant. Compared to ranibizumab alone, NMA of six trials showed no evidence of a difference with aflibercept (moderate certainty), bevacizumab (low certainty), or ranibizumab with prompt (very low certainty) or deferred laser (low certainty) regarding improvement by three or more ETDRS lines at 24 months. There was moderate-certainty evidence of greater CRT reduction at 24 months with brolucizumab (MD -23 microns, 95% CI -65 to -1 9) and aflibercept (MD -26 microns, 95% CI -53 to 0.9) compared to ranibizumab. There was moderate-certainty evidence of lesser CRT reduction with bevacizumab (MD 28 microns, 95% CI 0 to 56), ranibizumab plus deferred laser (MD 63 microns, 95% CI 18 to 109), and ranibizumab plus prompt laser (MD 72 microns, 95% CI 25 to 119) compared with ranibizumab alone. Regarding all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (20 trials), we found no evidence of increased risk of death for any drug compared to control, although effects were in the direction of an increase, and clinically relevant increases could not be ruled out. The certainty of this evidence was low for bevacizumab (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.88), brolucizumab (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 12.58), faricimab (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.00), ranibizumab (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34), and very low for conbercept (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.81) and aflibercept (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.77). Estimates for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events at 24 months did not suggest an increase with any drug compared to control, but the NMA was overall incoherent and the evidence was of low or very low certainty. Ocular adverse events were rare and poorly reported and could not be assessed in NMAs., Authors' Conclusions: There is limited evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs beyond one year of follow-up. We found no clinically important differences in visual outcomes at 24 months in people with DMO, although there were differences in CRT change. We found no evidence that any drug increases all-cause mortality compared to control, but estimates were very imprecise. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated, and the individuals exposed to these drugs may be less healthy than trial participants., Competing Interests: GV: none known KC: none known EL: none known TP: received honoraria for advisory board and lecture fees from Bayer, Allergan, B-I, Sandoz, Roche, Novartis, Heidelberg, Zeiss, and Optos MP: received payment for participating on the Advisory Board for Allergan, Bayer and Novartis. Jennifer Evans (methods guide, not an author): none known Iris Gordon (search specialist, not an author): none known, (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)