Search

Introduction This study determines the prevalence and associated correlates of people unaware of their diabetic retinopathy diagnosis in the U.S. Methods Participants unaware of diabetic retinopathy from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2005 to 2008 were identified. The prevalence of those unaware of their diabetic retinopathy diagnosis was determined. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to determine correlates associated with being unaware of one's diabetic retinopathy diagnosis (completed in 2018‒2020). Results Among 5,563 participants aged ≥40 years who underwent fundus photography, the prevalence of those unaware of their diabetic retinopathy diagnosis was 10.6% (9.8 million). This included 23.1% of those with self-reported diabetes (2.9 million) and 6.8% of those who reported not having diabetes (6.9 million). Among participants reporting diabetes with photographic evidence of retinopathy, 70.1% were unaware. Among individuals with self-reported diabetes, correlates of being unaware of one's diabetic retinopathy diagnosis included diabetes diaganosis for ≥10 years (OR=3.15, 95% CI=1.78, 5.56), HbA1c ≥6.5% (OR=2.92, 95% CI=1.65, 5.18), and treatment with insulin only (OR=4.04, 95% CI=1.43, 11.39). Self-reported hypertension was associated with decreased odds of undiagnosed diabetic retinopathy (OR=0.48, 95% CI=0.28, 0.82). Among those without self-reported diabetes, correlates of being unaware of diabetic retinopathy included older age (OR=1.02, 95% CI=1.01, 1.04), male sex (OR=1.83, 95% CI=1.31, 2.56), Black race (OR=1.81, 95% CI=1.12, 2.92), Hispanic race/ethnicity (OR=1.60, 95% CI=1.14, 2.25), elevated blood pressure (OR=1.54, 95% CI=1.23, 1.93), current smoking (OR=1.74, 95% CI=1.21, 2.51), and history of stroke (OR=2.20, 95% CI=1.06, 4.58). Conclusions A substantial proportion of individuals with diabetic retinopathy are unaware of the diagnosis. These data provide a path toward refining efforts to diagnose and treat diabetic retinopathy to decrease the burden of preventable blindness.

Purpose The current demographics of the ophthalmology workforce do not reflect the diverse United States population, which has implications for addressing health disparities. The demographics of ophthalmology department faculty may influence the recruitment of underrepresented students into the field. This study sought to determine how the racial and ethnic demographics of ophthalmology department faculty compare with those of other clinical departments at United States medical schools. Design Secondary data analysis of medical school faculty demographic data from the 2019 American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster. Participants Clinical faculty and department chairs at United States medical schools. Methods We analyzed the racial and ethnic demographics of clinical department faculty and department chairpersons using data from the 2019 AAMC Faculty Roster. We calculated the proportion of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in ophthalmology and in 17 other clinical departments. We analyzed these data for statistically significant differences between ophthalmology and other clinical departments. In addition, we compared the percentage of URM ophthalmology faculty with the proportion of URM persons among graduating United States medical students and in the United States population using data from the Medical School Graduation Questionnaire and the United States census, respectively. Main Outcome Measures The proportion of URM persons, defined as Black, Hispanic or Latino, Native American, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander among clinical faculty and department chairs. Results Ophthalmology faculty are less racially and ethnically diverse than graduating medical students and the general United States population. When compared with 17 other clinical departments, ophthalmology has the third-lowest proportion of URM faculty, with only radiology and orthopedic surgery having a smaller proportion of URM faculty. These differences were statistically significant in most departments (12 of 18). No statistically significant difference was found in the proportion of URM department chairs in ophthalmology compared with most other clinical departments, although the absolute number of URM chairs in ophthalmology is low at only 8 chairpersons. Conclusions More work must be done to increase the recruitment of URM physicians into ophthalmology faculty positions to obtain parity with other clinical departments and with the diverse patient populations that physicians serve.

PURPOSE: To describe follow-up rates for patients referred for outpatient ophthalmic care after emergency department (ED) discharge and identify patient and visit characteristics associated with loss to follow-up (LTFU). DESIGN: Single-institution retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We analyzed the medical records of 2,206 patients seen in the ED for an eye-related issue who were subsequently scheduled for ophthalmology follow-up between 2013-2019 at a single tertiary health system. The main outcome measures were the frequency of and risk factors for LTFU and ED revisits. RESULTS: In total, 1649 (74.8%) completed follow-up within 2-months of an index ED visit. On multivariable analysis, younger age (p5 days after the ED visit (p

Residence within a disadvantaged US neighborhood was significantly associated with adherence to initial diabetic retinopathy screening. Composite measures of community-level socioeconomic status have the potential to be utilized to inform patient-specific care and policy interventions.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is among the leading causes of vision loss in the US, yet an estimated 50% of patients with diabetes do not receive recommended annual screening eye exams. Patients with diabetes and low socioeconomic status or who are racial/ethnic minorities are at increased risk for vision loss. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 patients with diabetes at a federally qualified community health center in an urban area regarding factors influencing their use of screening. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed line by line to identify themes. The themes were organized in a theoretical framework of factors influencing receipt of screening. RESULTS: The median age of participants was 57.5 (range 44 −73). Ten participants identified as female and 14 as male. Participants identified as Black (14), White (4), Hispanic (3), and Other/no answer (3). Twenty-three had health insurance. Twenty-three had received an eye exam within in the past year and 17 reported that they receive eye exams at least yearly. 415 comments were analyzed, 22 concepts were identified under 7 broader themes and two overarching categories of individual and structural factors. Themes included vision status, competing concerns, emotional context, resource availability, in-clinic experience, cues to action, and knowledge about diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The factors that influence diabetic retinopathy screening utilization are complex. Visual symptoms and the need for glasses are important facilitators of screening. Many patients lack knowledge about diabetic retinopathy and the utility of preventative eye care. New strategies for engaging high-risk populations are necessary.

Purpose To report a case of idiopathic retinal vasculitis, aneurysms and neuroretinitis (IRVAN) in a young woman. Observations A 21-year-old white female patient was referred to retina clinic with decreased vision in the left eye. On examination, best corrected visual acuity was 20/20 in the right eye and counting fingers in the left eye. Fundus examination revealed bilateral optic disc edema, peripapillary and macular exudates, retinal arterial aneurysms, and venous beading. In the left eye, there was a large focus of exudative material in the central macula. Examination of the peripheral retina was unremarkable, bilaterally. Fluorescein angiography demonstrated arterial aneurysms and venous beading in both eyes, with optic nerve activity and vascular sheathing noted on late frames in both eyes. In the left eye, there was a large central area of blockage corresponding to hard exudates surrounding a more central area of hyperfluorescence with leakage, representing retinal neovascularization. Review of systems and extensive laboratory workup were negative. The patient was diagnosed with IRVAN. She was observed, and her exam at 6-month follow-up revealed low grade inflammation for which the patient was started on oral prednisone. Conclusions and Importance Management of IRVAN remains challenging because of its idiopathic nature and the lack of controlled clinical trials for such a rare entity. Bilateral involvement in IRVAN is variable and close follow up is crucial.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies have revolutionized the treatment of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (CSDME); yet these agents are expensive, and whether they are cost-effective is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CSDME: focal laser photocoagulation alone (L), focal laser plus intravitreal ranibizumab (L+R), focal laser plus intravitreal bevacizumab (L+B), or focal laser plus intravitreal triamcinolone (L+T) injections.Cost-effectiveness analysis.Hypothetical cohort of 57-year-old patients with newly diagnosed CSDME.By using a Markov model with a 25-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating patients with newly diagnosed CSDME using L, L+R, L+B, or L+T. Data came from the DRCRnet randomized controlled trial, the Medicare fee schedule, and the medical literature.Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.Compared with L, the incremental cost-effectiveness of L+R and L+B was $89903/QALY and $11138/QALY, respectively. L+T was dominated by L. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $50000/QALY, L was approximately 70% likely to be the preferred therapy over L+R and L+T. However, at a WTP of $100000/QALY, more than 90% of the time, L+R therapy was the preferred therapy compared with L and L+T. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, L+B was found to be the preferred therapy over L and L+T for any WTP value$10000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the annual risk of cerebrovascular accident would have to be at least 1.5% higher with L+B than with L+R for L+R to be the preferred treatment. In another sensitivity analysis, if patients require8 injections per year over the remainder of the 25-year time horizon, L+B would cost$100000/QALY, whereas L+R would be cost-effective at a WTP of $100000/QALY if patients require fewer than 0.45 injections per year after year 2.With bevacizumab and ranibizumab assumed to have equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles when used in the management of CSDME, bevacizumab therapy confers the greatest value among the different treatment options for CSDME.The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Introduction: Community-engaged research (CEnR) allows researchers and community organizations to partner together to improve health outcomes and to decrease health disparities. While prevalent in other fields of medicine, it is rarely used in ophthalmology.Areas covered: A comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE, NLM PubMed, Ovid Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library for the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) ‘Community-based participatory research’ and text word variations including participatory research, community engagement, community research, partnered research, community–institutional relations, CEnR, CBPR in addition to variations on ophthalmology, eye diseases, vision disorders and eye injuries yielded 451 unique references. Two ophthalmologists (KHN, PANC) reviewed the titles and abstracts and identified 37 relevant studies. Expert consultation yielded an additional reference. After reviewing the full texts and excluding non-English texts, 18 articles met the necessary criteria. The eightee...

The escalating amount of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) represents a significant dilemma for primary care providers. As the number of physician assistants (PAs) has been steadily increasing in primary care in the United States, the utilization of these healthcare professionals presents a solution for the care of post-kidney transplant recipients. A physician assistant (PA) is a state licensed healthcare professional who practices medicine under physician supervision and can alleviate some of the increasing demands for primary patient care. Here we provide an outline of the crucial components and considerations for PAs caring for kidney transplant recipients. These include renal function and routine screenings, drug monitoring (both immunosuppressive and therapeutic), pre-existing and co-existing conditions, immunizations, nutrition, physical activity, infection, cancer, and the patient’s emotional well-being. PAs should routinely monitor renal function and blood chemistry of KTRs. Drug monitoring of KTRs is a crucial responsibility of the PA because of the possible side-effects and potential drug-drug interactions. Therefore, PAs should obtain a careful and detailed patient history from KTRs. PAs should be aware of pre- and co-existing conditions of KTRs as this impacts treatment decisions. Regarding immunization, PAs should avoid administering vaccines containing live or attenuated viruses to KTRs. Because obesity following kidney transplantation is associated with decreased allograft survival, PAs should encourage KTRs to maintain a balanced diet with limited sugar. In addition, KTRs should be urged to gradually increase their levels of physical activity over subsequent years following surgery. PAs should be aware that immunosuppressive medications diminish immune defenses and make KTRs more susceptible to bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. Moreover, KTRs should be screened routinely for cancer due to the higher risk of development from immunosuppressive therapy. PAs must remain cognizant of the emotional well-being of the KTR, as many transplant patients struggle with fear, frustration, and acceptance.

Diabetic retinopathy affects 4.2 million people in the United States and is the leading cause of blindness in working-aged people. As the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise, cost-effective interventions to decrease blindness from diabetic retinopathy will be paramount. While HbA1c and duration of disease are known risk factors, they account for only 11% of the risk of developing microvascular complications from the disease. The assessment of environmental risk factors for diabetic eye disease allows for the determination of modifiable population-level challenges that may be addressed to facilitate the end of blindness from diabetes.