Search

In 2002, Diabetic Retinopathy was reported as the leading cause of blindness in the working age group. The introduction of systematic screening programs in the UK has reduced visual loss and blindness due to diabetic retinopathy, but it does still occur with catastrophic consequences for the individual. The author conducted an ongoing search for articles relating to diabetic retinopathy since 2000 utilizing Zetoc Alert with keywords and contents page lists from relevant journals. This review covers the risk factors for loss of vision due to diabetic retinopathy and discusses ways in which the awareness of these risk factors can be used to further reduce visual loss. Some risk factors such as glycemic and B/P control are well known from landmark trials. This review has included these factors but concentrated more on the evidence behind those risk factors that are not so clearly defined or so well known. The major risk factors are well known, but one continues to find that people with diabetes lose vision in situations in which a better awareness of the risks by both the individual with diabetes and the health workers involved may have prevented the visual loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate real-world effectiveness and safety of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant over three years of treatment in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) in a population with large ethnic diversity. Methods: This audit of three large treatment centres in the UK involved retrospective collection of outcome data (best recorded visual acuity [BRVA] by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters, central retinal thickness [CRT], intraocular pressure [IOP] and use of supplementary treatments) from patients with DME treated with 0.2 μg/day FAc intravitreal implant with three-year follow-up expected. Results: A total of 96 eyes were included. Ninety (93.8%) eyes had received prior intravitreal treatment. Increases in mean BRVA were significant at one, two and three years (p< 0.05). Overall, 78.1% of eyes gained or maintained BRVA; just over 50% gained ≥ 5 letters, representing a functional response. Eleven (11.6%) patients lost ≥ 10 letters by year three. Decreases in central retinal thickness (CRT) nearing 200 μm in the first year were sustained to three years (p < 0.0001). Patients with baseline VA ≥ 60 letters maintained their BRVA throughout follow-up, while significant improvements at month 12 (p< 0.0001) in those with baseline BRVA < 60 letters were maintained through month 36 (p < 0.005). Fifty-three (55.2%) eyes required no supplementary therapy during follow-up. Increases in IOP to ≥ 30 mmHg and ≥ 25 mmHg were seen in 12 (12.5%) and 23 (24.0%) eyes, respectively. Conclusion: This study confirms the effectiveness and tolerability of FAc implant up to 36 months in a real-world setting, highlighting the importance of early treatment for sustaining functional vision for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate central foveal thickness (CFT) variability and accompanying changes in visual acuity (VA) 12 months before and after treatment with the 190 mcg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema (DME).Methods: The Iluvien Clinical Evidence cohort study in the United Kingdom (ICE-UK) investigated the effectiveness of the FAc implant in people treated at 13 hospitals from April 2013 to April 2015. The following parameters were calculated for CFT for each patient: mean, standard deviation (SD), retinal thickness amplitude (RTA, the difference between maximum and minimum values), and coefficient of variation (CV).Results: In 149 eyes with ≥2 CFT observations both before and after FAc implantation, the median VA was 50 ETDRS letters at implantation. Mean CFT was 487 µm at implantation and 135 µm at 12 months post-implant. Before implantation, the mean CV and mean SD for CFT were 24.6% and 112 µm, respectively; the mean RTA was 254 µm. A statistically significant (p < .001) decrease in all three parameters was observed after implantation (18.3%, 68.2 μm and 146 μm, respectively). There was an association between CFT change between extremes and the corresponding change in VA (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r = -0.292, p < .001, prior to the implant; r = -0.379, p < .001, post-implant).Conclusions: After accounting for the reduction in CFT, retinal thickness stabilized following FAc implantation. There might be VA benefits in reducing variability in CFT over time. This merits further exploration but would require more frequent CFT observations in order to properly determine patterns of retinal thickness variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant between the observational Iluvien Clinical Evidence study in the United Kingdom (ICE-UK) and the Fluocinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with diabetic macular edema (DME). Clinical Trials Registration: NCT00344968. Methods: This study selected patients randomized to receive 0.2 µg/day FAc insert (FAc treated eyes) or sham injection (control eyes) from the FAME RCTs, and patients' first FAc treated eye and non-FAc treated fellow (control) eye from the ICE-UK study. Outcomes included change in visual acuity (VA), central foveal thickness (CFT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). Results: After 12 months follow-up, mean change in VA was 5.0 letters improvement (p < .001) and 1.6 letters improvement (p = .003) in FAME FAc treated and control eyes, and 3.8 letters (p = .012) and -2.1 letters (p = .056) in ICE-UK FAc treated and control eyes, respectively. Mean change in CFT was -144 µm (p < .001) vs -72 µm (p < .001) in FAME FAc treated and control eyes and -113 µm (p < .001) vs -13 µm (p < .001) in ICE-UK FAc treated and control eyes. For eyes with a follow-up of 12 months, 77 (22.3%) and 15 (8.6%) FAME FAc treated and control eyes and 25 (18.7%) and six (4.3%) ICE-UK FAc treated and control eyes required emergent IOP-lowering therapy. Conclusions: Statistically significant improvements in VA 12 months after FAc implantation were observed in both the real-world study and in the RCTs. The improvement in VA and CFT in the RCTs was marginally greater than in the real-world study; however, recruits in the real-world study had more severe visual morbidity at baseline. Whilst there were many changes in the care of people with DME over this time, these data all support the value of treatment with FAc intravitreal implant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]