| Literature DB >> 33269742 |
Rajiv Raman1, Kim Ramasamy2, Ramachandran Rajalakshmi3, Sobha Sivaprasad4, S Natarajan5.
Abstract
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is an emerging preventable cause of blindness in India. All India Ophthalmology Society (AIOS) and Vitreo-Retinal Society of India (VRSI) have initiated several measures to improve of DR screening in India. This article is a consensus statement of the AIOS DR task force and VRSI on practical guidelines of DR screening in India. Although there are regional variations in the prevalence of diabetes in India at present, all the States in India should screen their population for diabetes and its complications. The purpose of DR screening is to identify people with sight-threatening DR (STDR) so that they are treated promptly to prevent blindness. This statement provides strategies for the identification of people with diabetes for DR screening, recommends screening intervals in people with diabetes with and without DR, and describes screening models that are feasible in India. The logistics of DR screening emphasizes the need for dynamic referral pathways with feedback mechanisms. It provides the clinical standards required for DR screening and treatment of STDR and addresses the governance and quality assurance (QA) standards for DR screening in Indian settings. Other aspects incorporate education and training, recommendations on Information technology (IT) infrastructure, potential use of artificial intelligence for grading, data capture, and requirements for maintenance of a DR registry. Finally, the recommendations include public awareness and the need to work with diabetologists to control the risk factors so as to have a long-term impact on prevention of diabetes blindness in India.Entities:
Keywords: Consensus; India; diabetic retinopathy screening; guidelines
Year: 2021 PMID: 33269742 PMCID: PMC7942107 DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_667_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol ISSN: 0301-4738 Impact factor: 1.848
Skill based competence levels for people involved in retinal photography grading
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge on DR* | Basic knowledge of all lesions of DR | Detailed knowledge of all lesions of DR | Detailed knowledge of all lesions of DR and other retinal vascular conditions |
| About assessing image quality | Basic knowledge about how to assess the quality fundus images | Fairly good idea on assessment of image quality | Detailed knowledge image quality and aware about techniques of image enhancement |
| Grading lesions of DR | Should accurately have graded at least 100 images with a mix of DR and normals in last 3 months | Should accurately have graded at least 250 images with a mix of DR and normal in the last 3 months | Should accurately have graded at least 250 images with a mix of DR and normal in the last 3 months |
| Certification | Is aware about the certification programs and striving to achieve it | Is certified by one of the certification program | Is certified on a regular basis by one of the certification program. |
| Take decision regarding referral | Not able to make decisions of referral | Able to make decision on referral of DR | Able to refer STDR† confidently |
| Image handling | Keeps all the images without making any changes | Keeps all the images without making any changes | Able to identify only the required images and deletes the unnecessary ones |
| Records | Able to keep archival database of images | Able to keep the database and take back-ups too | Able to keep the database and take back-ups too |
| Follow up | Not able to take decisions regarding the follow-up | Is able to instruct follow-up advice for No DR cases | Is able to instruct follow-up advice for No DR and STDR cases |
*DR-Diabetic Retinopathy, †STDR - Sight Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy
Recommendations to access the quality of retinal images
| Image quality | Optic Disc | Macula | Superior Vascular Arcade and Inferior vascular arcade | Vessels |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good Quality | Clearly visible, well focused and gradable | Clearly visible, well focused and gradable | Both clearly visible, focused and gradable. | Are visible across >90% of image |
| Moderate Quality | Clearly visible but is not sharp focused and gradable | Clearly visible but is not sharp focused and gradable | Both clearly visible, focused and gradable | Vessels are seen in 80% or more of image |
| Poor Quality | Optic Disc is not clearly visible | Macular region is not clearly visible | At least one of the arcade is clearly visible, focused and gradable. | Vessels are seen in 60% or more of image. |
| Discard | Optic Disc is not visible | Macula is not clearly visible. | None of arcade is clearly visible. | Vessels are seen in <60% of image |
Skill Based Skill-based competence levels for people involved in taking retinal photograph
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basics | |||
| Knowledge on DR* | Basic Knowledge of 1. DR 2. Grading 3. Complications of DR | Detailed Knowledge of 1. DR 2. Grading 3. Complications of DR | Basic Knowledge of Grading & Management |
| About Retinal Photography | Basic Knowledge about how to perform Fundus Photography | Fairly good idea on Fundus Photography, handling the machine including the optics & adjusting the illumination | Detailed knowledge on Fundus Photography, handling the machine including the optics & adjusting the illumination |
| About FFA† | Basic Knowledge about how to perform FFA. | Detailed Knowledge about performing FFA, concentration & techniques on injecting the dye, positioning the camera & the patient. | Comprehensive knowledge on performing FFA & FFA interpretation |
| About Complications | Basic Knowledge about complications of FFA. | Detailed Knowledge about complications of FFA & the treatment. | Comprehensive Knowledge on complications & its management; & ability to administer Emergency First Aid Management |
| Counseling | Can explain regarding the procedure to the patient | Can explain regarding the procedure to the patient including complications. | Can explain regarding the procedure to the patient including complications. |
| Patient Records (EMR)‡ | Can create an EMR/paper record but with slight difficulty and takes additional time | Can create EMR/paper record without any difficulty | Can create an good EMR record/paper and can also access the old EMR records with ease |
| Quality of image (non mydriatic) | Minimum 70% images in focus | 70%-90% images in focus | >90% image in focus |
| Quality of image (mydriatic) | Minimum 70% images in focus | 70%-90% images in focus | >90% image in focus |
| Focussing the lesions | Unable to identify and focus on specific lesions | Able to identify and focus on specific lesion | Identifies and takes a well-focused images of specific lesions |
| quality and ability to perform stereoscopic images | Unable to perform stereoscopic images | Able to perform stereoscopic images | Produces good stereoscopic images |
| Speed of imaging | Completes imaging of reasonable quality in <20 min | Completes imaging in <15 min | Completes imaging in<10 mins |
| Basic life support | Unable to administer | Has knowledge about BLS§ | Had adequate knowledge and ability to perform BLS |
| Image grading and reporting | Can only identify few lesions in DR | Can identify lesion and grade DR | Can grade DR as well as identify few lesions on FFA |
| Identify diabetic retinopathy | Can only identify few lesions | Can identify most of the lesions | Can identify all the lesion and refer the patients if required |
| Grade diabetic retinopathy | Cannot grade DR | Can Grade presence or absence of DR | Can identify grades of DR |
| Identify phases of fluorescein angiography | Cannot identify | Can identify | Can identify |
| Ability to differentiate STDR||/Non STDR | Not able to differentiate | Not able to differentiate | Able to identify STDR/Non STDR |
| Ability to monitor disease progression | Not able to do | Not able to do | Able to monitor the progression of the disease adequately |
| Take decision regarding referral | Not able to make decisions of referral | Able to make decision on referral of DR | Able to refer STDR confidently |
| Image handling | Keeps all the images without making any changes | Keeps all the images without making any changes | Able to identify only the required images and deletes the unnecessary ones |
| Records | Able to keep archival database of images | Able to keep the database and take back-ups too | Able to keep the database and take back-ups too |
| Follow up | Not able take decisions regarding the follow-up | Is able to instruct follow-up advice for NO DR cases | Is able to instruct follow-up advice for NO DR and STDR cases |
| Complication management | Unable to manage complication | Has knowledge about the complications and its management | Has knowledge about the complication and management and able to perform basic procedures if required |
*DR- Diabetic Retinopathy, †FFA- Fundus Fluorescein Angiography, ‡EMR-Electronic Medical Records, §BLS-Basic Life Support, ||STDR-Sight Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy
Screening and follow-up guidelines for people with and without diabetic retinopathy
| Status of retinopathy | Referral to ophthalmologist | Follow-up | Recommended ocular treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| No Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) | Within 1 year | Every 1-2 years | None |
| Mild Non-Proliferative DR (NPDR) | Within 1 year | Every year | None |
| Moderate NPDR | Within 3-6 months | Every 6 months | None |
| Severe NPDR | Immediate | Every 3 months | Can consider pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) under specific circumstances |
| Proliferative DR | Immediate | Every 3 months | Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and/or intravitreal anti-VEGF* therapy, especially if HRCs† are present |
| No Diabetic macular edema (DME) | Within 1 year | Every year | None |
| Non-CiDME (non-center involving DME) | Immediate | Every 3 months | Focal laser photocoagulation, and observe carefully for progression to CiDME |
| Centre involving DME (CiDME) | Immediate | Every 1-2 months | Anti-VEGF as first-line therapy. Consider focal macular laser as an rescue therapy in eyes with persistent CiDME despite anti-VEGF. Intravitreal steroids can be used as an alternative in pseudophakic eyes or in select cases if anti-VEGF is contraindicated (like recent MI or CVA) |
*VEGF- Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor. †HRC-High Risk Characteristics
Standard of Care for Management of Diabetic Retinopathy
| • Fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) is indicated at baseline in the management of STDR- to identify areas of leak in DME, ischemia (in the macula), areas of non-perfusion and subtle neovascularisation. |
| • Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) has become indispensable in the management of DME. At baseline for qualitative and quantitative assessment (to identify center involving DME [CiDME]) and also during follow-up after treatment (intravitreal injections). |
| • Intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are indicated as the first line therapy for central-involving DME (CiDME).[ |
| • Although first-line therapy for most eyes with central-involved DME consists of anti-VEGF, intravitreal injection of steroids (Triamcinolone inj/dexamethasone implant) can also be effective for DME treatment especially in pseudophakic eyes or if there is any contraindication to use of anti-VEGF like any recent stroke/ myocardial infarction.[ |
| • The standard doses for the conventional pharmacotherapies are: - Ranibizumab (Lucentis/Accentrix/Razumab) - 0.5 mg/0.05 ml; Aflibercept (Eylea) - 2 mg/0.05 ml; Bevacizumab (Avastin) - 1.25 mg/0.05 ml; Triamcinolone - 2 mg/0.05 ml; Ozurdex (dexamethasone implant) - 0.7 mg. |
| • The panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) therapy is the mainstay of treatment to reduce the risk of vision loss in patients with high-risk Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (PDR) and, indicated in some with severe Non-Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy (NPDR) (in scenario like poor compliance with follow up, impending cataract surgery or pregnancy and status of fellow eye/precious eye, etc). |
| • Intravitreal injection of the Anti-VEGF can be combined with traditional PRP in cases with both macular edema and PDR.[ |
| • The presence of DR is not a contraindication to aspirin therapy for cardioprotection, as aspirin does not increase the risk of pre-retinal or vitreous hemorrhage. |
| • Topical Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory eye drops like Nepafenac eye drops have no meaningful effect in the treatment of non-central DME (OCT measured retinal thickness).[ |
| • For all people, regardless of the stage or severity of DR, medical management to optimize glycemic control, optimize blood pressure and serum lipid levels reduces the risk or slows the progression of diabetic retinopathy.[ |
Ways to create Public Awareness
| Approach | Method | Media |
|---|---|---|
| Mass | Press meeting | Radio/Television |
| Group | Seminars | PowerPoint |
| Individual | Patient Education | Flip Chart |
Recommendations for treatment of Risk Factors
| Parameter | Recommended value* | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c)[ | 6.5 - 7% | The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) in type 1 diabetes,[ |
| Blood Pressure (BP)[ | Systolic BP: ≤130 mm of Mercury for those with Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) Systolic BP of <140 mmHg for those without DR and/or cardiac/renal complications of diabetes. | The UKPDS showed that, among patients with T2D, tight BP control (mean BP 144/82 mm Hg) resulted in a significant reduction in progression of DR (35%) as well as a decrease in significant visual loss and the need for laser photocoagulation compared to less tight control (mean BP 154/87 mmHg).[ |
| Serum Lipid Levels[ | Total cholesterol <200 mg/dl Serum Triglycerides <150 mg/dl Serum LDL (low density lipoprotein) cholesterol <100 mg/dl | The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study found that requirement for first laser treatment for retinopathy was significantly lower in the group given 200 mg fenofibrate once daily.[ |
*Needs to be individualized