ABSTRACT
The prevalence of youth-onset diabetes, both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and young-onset type 2 diabetes (YT2D) are gradually increasing in India. Early and repetitive screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) is essential to provide timely management, and thereby prevent visual impairment due to the silent sight-threatening microvascular complication of diabetes. A study was undertaken at a diabetes care center in Chennai, south India, to assess the feasibility of screening for DR in T1D in a diabetes clinic and determine the burden of sight-threatening DR (STDR) in individuals with T1D. 315 people with T1D were screened for DR (mean age at onset of diabetes 12.3 ± 6.4 years) by digital retinal color photography, at the urban diabetes center, in a semi-urban and rural diabetes clinic. Counseling about diabetes and the importance of annual screening for retinopathy was provided by diabetes educators. Participants were reviewed after 6 months/1 year based on ophthalmologist's advice. DR was detected in 37.1% (n = 117), 42 (13%) of whom had STDR.Three-quarter participants were compliant with the annual follow-up retinal examination. The peer support group was established for participants with T1D and their families to foster interactions with service providers. The peer group meetings helped to increase the awareness of retinopathy among the parents and individuals with T1D. This narrative provides details of the study that shows that screening for DR among individuals with T1D in a diabetes clinic is a feasible model, irrespective of its location.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of smartphone-based nonmydriatic (NM) retinal camera in the detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and sight-threatening DR (STDR) in a tertiary eye care facility. Methods: Patients with diabetes underwent retinal photography with a smartphone-based NM fundus camera before mydriasis and standard 7-field fundus photography with a desktop mydriatic fundus camera after mydriasis. DR was graded using the international clinical classification of diabetic retinopathy system by two retinal expert ophthalmologists masked to each other and to the patient's identity. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) to detect DR and STDR by NM retinal imaging were assessed. Results: 245 people had gradable images in one or both eyes. DR and STDR were detected in 45.3% and 24.5%, respectively using NM camera, and in 57.6% and 28.6%, respectively using mydriatic camera. The sensitivity and specificity to detect any DR by NM camera was 75.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 68.1–82.3) and 95.2% (95%CI 91.1–99.3). For STDR the values were 82.9% (95% CI 74.0–91.7) and 98.9% (95% CI 97.3–100), respectively. The PPV to detect any DR was 95.5% (95% CI 89.8–98.5) and NPV was 73.9% (95% CI 66.4–81.3); PPV for STDR detection was 96.7% (95% CI 92.1–100)) and NPV was 93.5% (95% CI 90.0–97.1). Conclusion: Smartphone-based NM retinal camera had fairly high sensitivity and specificity for detection of DR and STDR in this clinic-based study. Further studies are warranted in other settings.