1,720,996 research outputs found
Effect of glycaemic control and the introduction of insulin therapy on retinopathy in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.
No full text
Relationship between the severity of retinopathy and progression to photocoagulation in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UKPDS (UKPDS 52)
No full textAim: to establish the degree to which the severity of retinopathy determines the risk for the need for subsequent photocoagulation in those with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: of 5102 patients entered into the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), 3709 had good quality retinal photographs that could be graded at entry. They were followed until the end of the study or until lost to follow-up, or until they received photocoagulation. Retinopathy severity was categorized as no retinopathy, microaneurysms (MA) only in one eye, MA in both eyes or more severe retinopathy features. The risk of photocoagulation was assessed in relation to severity of retinopathy at baseline, 3 and 6 years. Results: of the 3709 patients assessed at entry to the UKPDS, 2316 had no retinopathy. Of these 0.2% needed photocoagulation at 3 years, 1.1% at 6 years and 2.6% at 9 years. Those with MA in one eye only (n = 708) were similar, with 0%, 1.9% and 4.7% needing photocoagulation by 3, 6 and 9 years, respectively. Amongst those who had more retinopathy features at entry (n = 509), 15.3% required photocoagulation by 3 years, and 31.9% by 9 years. When those without retinopathy at 6 years (n = 1579) were examined 3 and 6 years later (9 and 12 years after diagnosis), 0.1% and 1.8% required photocoagulation. Those with more severe retinopathy (n = 775) needed earlier treatment, 6.6% after 3 years and 13.3% after 9 years. The commonest indication for laser therapy was maculopathy, but those with more severe retinopathy were more likely to be treated for proliferative retinopathy and to need both eyes treated. Conclusion: few type 2 diabetic patients without retinopathy progress to photocoagulation in the following 3-6 years, while patients with more severe retinopathy lesions need to be monitored closely.</p
Risk of diabetic retinopathy at first screen in children at 12 and 13 years of age
No full textAims: to investigate the relationships between age at diagnosis of diabetes, age at diabetic eye screening and severity of diabetic retinopathy at first and subsequent screenings in children aged 12 or 13 years. Methods: data were extracted from four English screening programmes and from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish programmes on all children with diabetes invited for their first and subsequent screening episodes from the age of 12 years. Retinopathy levels at first and subsequent screens, time from diagnosis of diabetes to first screening and age at diagnosis in years were calculated. Results: data were available for 2125 children with diabetes screened for the first time at age 12 or 13 years. In those diagnosed with diabetes at 2 years of age or less, the proportion with retinopathy in one or both eyes was 20% and 11%, respectively, decreasing to 8% and 2% in those diagnosed between 2 and 12 years (P < 0.0001). Only three children (aged 8, 10 and 11 years at diagnosis of diabetes) had images graded with referable retinopathy and, of these, two had non-referable diabetic retinopathy at all subsequent screenings. Of 1703 children with subsequent images, 25 were graded with referable diabetic retinopathy over a mean follow-up of 3.1 years, an incidence rate of 4.7 (95% confidence interval, 3.1–7.0) per 1000 per year. Conclusions: in this large cohort of children, the low prevalence and incidence rates of referable diabetic retinopathy suggest that screening earlier than age 12 is not necessary.</p
System-level and patient-level explanations for non-attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening in Sutton and Merton (London, UK): a qualitative analysis of a service evaluation
Full text linkObjectives: Non-attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening has financial implications for screening programmes and potential clinical costs to patients. We sought to identify explanations for why patients had never attended a screening appointment (never attendance) in one programme. Design: Qualitative analysis of a service evaluation. Setting: One South London (UK) diabetic eye screening programme. Participants and procedure: Patients who had been registered with one screening programme for at least 18 months and who had never attended screening within the programme were contacted by telephone to ascertain why this was the case. Patients’ general practices were also contacted for information about why each patient may not have attended. Framework analysis was used to interpret responses. Results: Of the 296 patients, 38 were not eligible for screening and of the 258 eligible patients, 159 were not contactable (31 of these had phone numbers that were not in use). We obtained reasons from patients/general practices/clinical notes for non-attendance for 146 (57%) patients. A number of patient-level and system-level factors were given to explain non-attendance. Patient-level factors included having other commitments, being anxious about screening, not engaging with any diabetes care and being misinformed about screening. System-level factors included miscommunication about where the patient lives, their clinical situation and practical problems that could have been overcome had their existence been shared between programmes. Conclusions: This service evaluation provides unique insight into the patient-level and system-level reasons for never attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening. Improved sharing of relevant information between providers has the potential to facilitate increased uptake of screening. Greater awareness of patient-level barriers may help providers offer a more accessible service
Delay in diabetic retinopathy screening increases the rate of detection of referable diabetic retinopathy.
Full text linkAIMS: To assess whether there is a relationship between delay in retinopathy screening after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and level of retinopathy detected. METHODS: Patients were referred from 88 primary care practices to an English National Health Service diabetic eye screening programme. Data for screened patients were extracted from the primary care databases using semi-automated data collection algorithms supplemented by validation processes. The programme uses two-field mydriatic digital photographs graded by a quality assured team. RESULTS: Data were available for 8183 screened patients with diabetes newly diagnosed in 2005, 2006 or 2007. Only 163 with type 1 diabetes were identified and were insufficient for analysis. Data were available for 8020 with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Of these, 3569 were screened within 6 months, 2361 between 6 and 11 months, 1058 between 12 and 17 months, 366 between 18 and 23 months, 428 between 24 and 35 months, and 238 at 3 years or more after diagnosis. There were 5416 (67.5%) graded with no retinopathy, 1629 (20.3%) with background retinopathy in one eye, 753 (9.4%) with background retinopathy in both eyes and 222 (2.8%) had referable diabetic retinopathy. There was a significant trend (P = 0.0004) relating time from diagnosis to screening detecting worsening retinopathy. Of those screened within 6 months of diagnosis, 2.3% had referable retinopathy and, 3 years or more after diagnosis, 4.2% had referable retinopathy. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of detection of referable diabetic retinopathy is elevated in those who were not screened promptly after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes
UKPDS 19: heterogeneity in NIDDM: separate contributions of IRS-1 and b3-adrenergic-receptor mutations to insulin resistance and obesity respectively with no evidence for glycogen synthase gene mutations
No full textInsulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1), β3-adrenergic-receptor (β3-AR) and glycogen synthase (GS) genes are candidate genes for non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), insulin resistance, dyslipidaemia and obesity. We studied white Caucasian subjects with NIDDM, 227 being randomly selected, 49 NIDDM within the top two percentiles of insulin resistance; 54 with dyslipidaemia in the top quintile of triglyceride/insulin and the bottom quintile of HDL, and 166 non-diabetic control subjects. We examined the association of the simple tandem repeat DNA polymorphisms (STRPs) near the IRS-1 and GS genes, and the prevalence of mutations at codons of IRS-1 513 and 972, β3-AR 64 and GS 464 using restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). The STRP alleles in IRS-1 were significantly different between NIDDM and control subjects (p = 0.015). The IRS-1 972 mutation was significantly different between the four groups with increased prevalence in the insulin resistant and dyslipidaemia subjects (18 and 26% compared with 11% in control subjects; p < 0.0005). Thoese with or without IRS-1 mutations had similar clinical characteristics and impaired insulin sensitivity. β3-AR 64 mutation was not significantly different between the four groups but those with the mutation were more obese, with a test for linear association between number of alleles and degree of obesity in an analysis of variance showing a significant association (p = 0.029). The GS 464 mutation was not detected in any of the diabetic or control subjects and the population association study using GS STRP showed no difference in allelic frequencies between NIDDM patients and control subjects. A mutation in lipoprotein lipase at codon 291, associated in the general population with low HDL cholesterol, was not at increased prevalence in the NIDDM patients with dyslipidaemia. In conclusion, IRS-1 972 had an increased prevalence in subjects with insulin resistance, with or without dyslipidaemia. β3-AR 64 was associated with increased obesity but not with insulin resistance or dyslipidaemia. These separate contributions to different features of NIDDM are an example of the polygenic inheritance of this heterogeneous disorder.</p
- …
