Global Diabetes Prevalence Is Projected to Increase 242% Between 2000 and 2030 Global data 2000: 151 million patients 2010: 221 million patients 2030: 366 million Amos AF, et al. Diabet Med. 1997;14:S7-S85. Wild S, et al. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1047-1053. 2000: 14.2 M 2010: 17.5 M +23% 2000: 9.4 M 2010: 14.2 M +50% 2000: 84.5 M 2010: 132.3 M +57% 2000: 15.6 M 2010: 22.5 M +44% 2000: 26.5 M 2010: 32.8 M +24% 2000: 1.04 M 2010: 1.33 M +28%
35
Embed
Global Diabetes Prevalence Is Projected to Increase 242% Between 2000 and 2030 Global data 2000: 151 million patients 2010: 221 million patients 2030:
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Global Diabetes Prevalence Is Projected to Increase 242% Between 2000 and 2030
Global data2000: 151 million patients2010: 221 million patients2030: 366 million patients
Amos AF, et al. Diabet Med. 1997;14:S7-S85.Wild S, et al. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1047-1053.
2000: 14.2 M2010: 17.5 M
+23%
2000: 9.4 M2010: 14.2 M
+50%
2000: 84.5 M2010: 132.3 M
+57%
2000: 15.6 M2010: 22.5 M
+44%
2000: 26.5 M2010: 32.8 M
+24%
2000: 1.04 M2010: 1.33 M
+28%
Potential Metabolic Pathways Leading to Diabetic Microvascular Complications
Not shown in this diagram due to space limitations: activation of additional inflammatory and growth factors.
Purpose, Benefits, and Limitations of Common Retinal Diagnostic Procedures
Test name Purpose Benefits Limitations
Dilated stereo fundoscopy with slit-lamp biomicroscopy
Assess posterior pole, midperipheral, and peripheral retina
Detects CSME, PDR
Superior to fundus photography for detecting retinal thickening
Opacity may limit exam
Indirect ophthalmos-copy
Assess peripheral retina
Alternative to slit-lamp biomicroscopy
Opacity may limit exam
Stereoscopic 30° color fundus photography
Document retinal status
Permits objective comparison over time
More sensitive and reproducible than clinical exam
Requires trained photographer and trained reader
Opacity may degrade image quality
American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred Practice Pattern: Diabetic Retinopathy. San Francisco, California: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2003.
Purpose, Benefits, and Limitations of Advanced Retinal Diagnostic Procedures
Allows retinal assessment even if opacity is present
Lower image resolution than OCT
Optical coherence tomography (OCT)
Diagnose and quantify DME
Diagnose macular holes or cysts, vitreomacular traction
Provides high-resolution, cross-sectional images of the vitreoretinal interface, retina, and subretinal space
Opacity may degrade image quality
American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred Practice Pattern: Diabetic Retinopathy. San Francisco, California: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2003.
• Allows for retinal imaging in presence of media opacity
• Aids in diagnosis of retinal detachment
• Assesses need and urgency for vitreoretinal surgery
Ultrasonography
Image courtesy of Thomas Ciulla, MD
Retinal detachment + Hemorrhage
• IVFA is good for:– Highlighting
microaneurysms– Showing ischemia– Showing break-
down of the blood retinal barrier
– Diagnosing proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Utility of Intravenous Fluorescein Angiography (IVFA)
Photographic fundus image
Fluorescein angiogram
OCT and DME
• Sponge-like fluid accumulation in the outer retina
(60% to 96% of eyes) corresponds to focal/diffuse ME
OCT and DME
• Cystoid macular edema (CME) (50%)
OCT and DME
• Mechanical—hyaloidal traction and/or ERM (16%)
OCT and DME
• Serous macular detachment with or without traction (15%)
Signs and Symptoms of Diabetic Retinopathy
Preclinical NPDR PDR DME
Symptoms None None, or blurred vision and glare
None, or reduced vision and floaters
None, or blurred vision
Clinical signs
Normal-appearing retina
Retinal venous dilation
Microaneurysms
Cotton-wool spots
Intraretinal hemorrhages
IRMAs
Venous beading
Retinal venous dilation
Venous beading
IRMAs
Neovascularization
Swelling of retina
Increased capillary leakage
Fluid accumulation in retinal layers
IRMA = intraretinal microvascular abnormalityGardner TW, Aiello LP. Pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy. In: Flynn HW, Smiddy WE, eds. Diabetes and Ocular Disease: Past, Present, and Future Therapies. AAO Monograph Number 14. San Francisco: The Foundation of the
American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2000:1-17.
Severe NPDR
Nonproliferative Diabetic Retinopathy
Severe NPDR, courtesy of Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group
International Clinical Diabetic Macular Edema Disease Severity Scale
Proposed Disease Severity Level
Findings Observable Upon Dilated Ophthalmoscopy
DME apparently absent No apparent retinal thickening or hard exudates in posterior pole
DME apparently present Some apparent retinal thickening or hard exudates in posterior pole
If DME is present, it can be categorized as follows:
Mild DME Some retinal thickening or hard exudates in posterior pole but distant from the center of the macula
Moderate DME Retinal thickening or hard exudates approaching the center of the macula but not involving the center
Severe DME Retinal thickening or hard exudates involving the center of the macula
DME = diabetic macular edema Wilkinson CP, et al. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1677-1682.American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred practice pattern: diabetic retinopathy.
San Francisco, Calif: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2003.
International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Disease Severity Scale
Proposed Disease Severity Level
Findings Observable Upon Dilated Ophthalmoscopy
No apparent retinopathy No abnormalities
Mild NPDR Microaneurysms only
Moderate NPDR More than just microaneurysms but less than severe NPDR
Severe NPDR
(4:2:1 Rule)
Any of the following:• More than 20 intraretinal hemorrhages in each of 4
quadrants• Definite venous beading in 2 or more quadrants• Prominent IRMA in 1 or more quadrants and no signs of
PDR
PDR One or both of the following:• Neovascularization• Vitreous/preretinal hemorrhage
Wilkinson CP, et al. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1677-1682; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred practice pattern: diabetic retinopathy. San Francisco, Calif: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2003.
DCCT: Lower A1C Slows Development and Progression of Retinopathy
Primary Cohort: No Baseline Retinopathy
Secondary Cohort: Some Retinopathy at Baseline
Primary conventional: n = 378Primary intensive: n = 348
Secondary conventional: n = 352Secondary intensive: n = 363
DCCT. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977-986.
Percentage of Patients Experiencing Sustained 3-Step Decrease
60 Cumulative Incidence
Study Year
Pe
rce
nt
P < .001 CON
INT
50
40
30
20
10
00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
60 Cumulative Incidence
Study Year
Pe
rce
nt
P < .001 CON
INT
50
40
30
20
10
00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
UKPDS*: Lower A1C Correlates With Reduced Risk of Development and Progression of
Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetes
Development:
P<.001
Progression:
P<.001
Stratton IM, et al. Diabetologia. 2001;44:156-163.Matthews DR, et al. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;44:1631-1640.
<6.2 6.2-7.4 ≥7.5 <6.2 6.2-7.4 ≥7.5
Baseline A1C, %
0.1
1
8
Rel
ativ
e R
isk
• n = 1,919
• Development: new retinopathy >6 years for patients without retinopathy at baseline
• Progression: 2 or more steps on the final ETDRS scale >6 years for patients with retinopathy at baseline
*United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study
UKPDS: Lower BP Reduces Relative Risk of Development and Progression of Retinopathy
Over 7.5 Years in Type 2 Diabetes
Matthews DR, et al. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;44:1631-1640.
• n = 1,148
• Tight blood pressure control: <150/85 mm Hg
• Less tight blood pressure control: <180/105 mm Hg
• Results shown for both cohorts (with and without baseline retinopathy) randomized to tight blood pressure control
Sign or outcome Relative risk
P value
≥5 microaneurysms 0.66 <.001
Hard exudates 0.53 <.001
≥1 cotton-wool spot 0.53 <.001
≥2-step ETDRS loss 0.66 .001
Laser photocoagulation
0.63 .03
Blindness in 1 eye (VA worse than 20/200)
0.76 .46
High-risk PDR
(3 or 4 high-risk features)
No Usually No
Yes Usually Usually
Indications for Laser Photocoagulation Therapy in Diabetic Retinopathy
Adapted from: American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred practice pattern: diabetic retinopathy. San Francisco, Calif: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2003.
Mild to moderate NPDR
No No No
Yes No Usually
Severe or very severe PDR
No Sometimes, especially type 2 No
Yes Sometimes, especially type 2 Usually
Non–high-risk PDR
(1 or 2 high-risk features)
No Sometimes, especially type 2 No
Yes Sometimes, especially type 2 Usually
Severity of retinopathy
CSME present?
Scatter laser photocoagulation
Focal laser photocoagulation
Indications for Vitrectomy and Potential Complications
American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred practice pattern: diabetic retinopathy. San Francisco, Calif: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2003.
Flynn HW, Smiddy WE, eds. Diabetes and Ocular Disease: Past, Present, and Future Therapies. AAO Monograph No 14. San Francisco: The Foundation of the American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2000.
Diabetic Retinopathy Vitrectomy Study report number 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103:1644-1652.
Indications
• Nonclearing vitreous hemorrhage• Severe fibrovascular proliferation
hemorrhage• Rubeosis iridis• Severe visual loss• Eye pain• Ocular infection
Intravitreal Triamcinolone Improves VA and Reduces DME
Chieh JJ, et al. Retina. 2005;25:828-834.
Clinical Resolution of Edema
Mea
n C
han
ge
in V
A (
Lo
gM
AR
)
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
1 3 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Re
so
lve
d
Imp
rov
ed
No
ch
an
ge
Se
ve
reD
ME
1 month 6 months
Improvement in VA Relative to Baseline
Per
cen
t o
f E
yes
Month
Pegaptanib Decreases Retinal Thickness at Center Point of Central Subfield in CSME
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Sham (n = 42)
0.3 mg (n = 44)
1 mg (n = 44)
3 mg (n = 42)
Cunningham ET Jr, et al. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1747-1757.
Pegaptanib Dose
Note: Authors state that study was not powered to detect dose-dependent treatment effects.
Ch
ang
e in
Cen
tral
Ret
inal
T
hic
knes
s, μ
m
P = .02
Pegaptanib Improves VA Outcomes in DME
Cunningham ET Jr, et al. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1747-1757.
Note: Authors state that study was not powered to detect dose-dependent treatment effects.
Increase in VA
(letters)
Pegaptanib Dose
Sham
(n = 41)
0.3 mg
(n = 44)
1 mg
(n = 43)
3 mg
(n = 42)
≥ 10 10% 34%
P = .003
30% 14%
≥ 15 7% 18%
P = .12
14% 7%
Patients attaining ≥ 2-line increase after 36 weeks of treatment
Pegaptanib Adverse Events
Event Sham Pegaptanib
Eye pain 17 31
Vitreous floaters 7 22
Conjunctival hemorrhage 10
Vitreous opacities 5 9
Vitreous disorder NOS 7
Visual disturbance NOS 2 7
Sterile endophthalmitis 1
Ocular adverse events that occurred significantly more often in study eyes1
Cunningham ET Jr, et al. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1747-1757.
Data are percentage of total patient group. Zeroes omitted. NOS = not otherwise specified.1Punctate keratitis, cataracts, and eye discharge occurred at approximately equal rates in both sham and pegaptanib groups. No clinically relevant differences were observed between treatment groups for cardiac, hemorrhagic, thromboembolic, or gastrointestinal disorders.
Log Rank P values:Overall: .06932 mg vs Placebo: .038
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42
30
20
10
0
MVL = moderate visual loss (≥15 letters)
Ruboxistaurin Adverse Events
PKC-DRS Study Group. Diabetes. 2005;54:2188-2197.
Data are percentage of total patient group.CAD = coronary artery disease; NOS = not otherwise specified; 1° AV block = first-degree atrioventricular block
Organ system Event PBO 4/8 mg/d 16 mg/d 32 mg/d
GastrointestinalDiarrhea NOS 16.9 13.6 24.4 14.9
Flatulence 1.7 1.3 4.2 0.4
CardiovascularCAD NOS 6.8 3.5 13.0 4.7
1° AV Block 0 1.3 1.3 3.4
Pulmonary Asthma NOS 0.8 1.8 1.7 4.7
RenalDysuria 1.3 0.9 1.7 4.3
Proteinuria 0.8 1.3 3.8 0.9
Dermatological Hyperkeratosis 5.5 6.6 2.5 2.1
Events occurring in >3% of patients in any treatment group and with statistically significant difference between groups