Dóra Júlia Eszes1, Dóra Júlia Szabó2, Greg Russell3, Csaba Lengyel4, Tamás Várkonyi4, Edit Paulik1, László Nagymajtényi1, Andrea Facskó2, Goran Petrovski5, Beáta Éva Petrovski5. 1. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Szent-Györgyi Albert Clinical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary. 3. Eyenuk Inc., Clinical Development, Woodland Hills, CA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Albert Szent-Györgyi Clinical Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary. 5. Center for Eye Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Oslo University Hospital and Institute for Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of vision loss among active adults in industrialized countries. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM), DR and its different grades, in patients with DM in the Csongrád County, South-Eastern region, Hungary. Furthermore, we aimed to detect the risk factors for developing DR and the diabetology/ophthalmology screening patterns and frequencies, as well as the effect of socioeconomic status- (SES-) related factors on the health and behavior of DM patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on adults (>18 years) involving handheld fundus camera screening (Smartscope Pro Optomed, Finland) and image assessment using the Spectra DR software (Health Intelligence, England). Self-completed questionnaires on self-perceived health status (SPHS) and health behavior, as well as visual acuity, HbA1c level, type of DM, and attendance at healthcare services were also recorded. RESULTS: 787 participants with fundus camera images and full self-administered questionnaires were included in the study; 46.2% of the images were unassessable. T1D and T2D were present in 13.5% and 86.5% of the participants, respectively. Among the T1D and T2D patients, 25.0% and 33.5% had DR, respectively. The SES showed significant proportion differences in the T1D group. Lower education was associated with a lower DR rate compared to non-DR (7.7% vs. 40.5%), while bad/very bad perceived financial status was associated with significantly higher DR proportion compared to non-DR (63.6% vs. 22.2%). Neither the SPHS nor the health behavior showed a significant relationship with the disease for both DM groups. Mild nonproliferative retinopathy without maculopathy (R1M0) was detected in 6% and 23% of the T1D and T2D patients having DR, respectively; R1 with maculopathy (R1M1) was present in 82% and 66% of the T1D and T2D groups, respectively. Both moderate nonproliferative retinopathy with maculopathy (R2M1) and active proliferative retinopathy with maculopathy (R3M1) were detected in 6% and 7% of the T1D and T2D patients having DR, respectively. The level of HbA1c affected the attendance at the diabetology screening (HbA1c > 7% associated with >50% of all quarter-yearly attendance in DM patients, and with 10% of the diabetology screening nonattendance). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of DM and DR in the studied population in Hungary followed the country trend, with a slightly higher sight-threatening DR than the previously reported national average. SES appears to affect the DR rate, in particular, for T1D. Although DR screening using handheld cameras seems to be simple and dynamic, much training and experience, as well as overcoming the issue of decreased optic clarity is needed to achieve a proper level of image assessability, and in particular, for use in future telemedicine or artificial intelligence screening programs.
PURPOSE: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of vision loss among active adults in industrialized countries. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM), DR and its different grades, in patients with DM in the Csongrád County, South-Eastern region, Hungary. Furthermore, we aimed to detect the risk factors for developing DR and the diabetology/ophthalmology screening patterns and frequencies, as well as the effect of socioeconomic status- (SES-) related factors on the health and behavior of DM patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on adults (>18 years) involving handheld fundus camera screening (Smartscope Pro Optomed, Finland) and image assessment using the Spectra DR software (Health Intelligence, England). Self-completed questionnaires on self-perceived health status (SPHS) and health behavior, as well as visual acuity, HbA1c level, type of DM, and attendance at healthcare services were also recorded. RESULTS: 787 participants with fundus camera images and full self-administered questionnaires were included in the study; 46.2% of the images were unassessable. T1D and T2D were present in 13.5% and 86.5% of the participants, respectively. Among the T1D and T2D patients, 25.0% and 33.5% had DR, respectively. The SES showed significant proportion differences in the T1D group. Lower education was associated with a lower DR rate compared to non-DR (7.7% vs. 40.5%), while bad/very bad perceived financial status was associated with significantly higher DR proportion compared to non-DR (63.6% vs. 22.2%). Neither the SPHS nor the health behavior showed a significant relationship with the disease for both DM groups. Mild nonproliferative retinopathy without maculopathy (R1M0) was detected in 6% and 23% of the T1D and T2D patients having DR, respectively; R1 with maculopathy (R1M1) was present in 82% and 66% of the T1D and T2D groups, respectively. Both moderate nonproliferative retinopathy with maculopathy (R2M1) and active proliferative retinopathy with maculopathy (R3M1) were detected in 6% and 7% of the T1D and T2D patients having DR, respectively. The level of HbA1c affected the attendance at the diabetology screening (HbA1c > 7% associated with >50% of all quarter-yearly attendance in DM patients, and with 10% of the diabetology screening nonattendance). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of DM and DR in the studied population in Hungary followed the country trend, with a slightly higher sight-threatening DR than the previously reported national average. SES appears to affect the DR rate, in particular, for T1D. Although DR screening using handheld cameras seems to be simple and dynamic, much training and experience, as well as overcoming the issue of decreased optic clarity is needed to achieve a proper level of image assessability, and in particular, for use in future telemedicine or artificial intelligence screening programs.
Authors: Quan Dong Nguyen; David M Brown; Dennis M Marcus; David S Boyer; Sunil Patel; Leonard Feiner; Andrea Gibson; Judy Sy; Amy Chen Rundle; J Jill Hopkins; Roman G Rubio; Jason S Ehrlich Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-02-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jeremy J Peavey; Samantha L D'Amico; Brian Y Kim; Stephen T Higgins; David S Friedman; Christopher J Brady Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2020-08-21
Authors: Maaike Langelaan; Michiel R de Boer; Ruth M A van Nispen; Bill Wouters; Annette C Moll; Ger H M B van Rens Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Jose R Davila; Sabyasachi S Sengupta; Leslie M Niziol; Manavi D Sindal; Cagri G Besirli; Swati Upadhyaya; Maria A Woodward; Rengaraj Venkatesh; Alan L Robin; Joseph Grubbs; Paula Anne Newman-Casey Journal: Ophthalmologica Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Goodarz Danaei; Mariel M Finucane; Yuan Lu; Gitanjali M Singh; Melanie J Cowan; Christopher J Paciorek; John K Lin; Farshad Farzadfar; Young-Ho Khang; Gretchen A Stevens; Mayuree Rao; Mohammed K Ali; Leanne M Riley; Carolyn A Robinson; Majid Ezzati Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 79.321