Comparison of standardized clinical classification with fundus photograph grading for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema severity.

PURPOSE: To compare evaluation by clinical examination with image grading at a reading center for the classification of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. METHODS: Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) and Family Investigations of Nephropathy in Diabetes (FIND) had similar methods of clinical and fundus photograph evaluation. For analysis purposes, the photographic grading scales were condensed to correspond to the clinical scales, and agreement between clinicians and reading center classification were compared. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred and two eyes of ACCORD participants and 3,638 eyes of FIND participants were analyzed for agreement (percent, kappa) on diabetic retinopathy on a 5-level scale. Exact agreement between clinicians and reading center on diabetic retinopathy severity category was 69% in ACCORD and 74% in FIND (kappa 0.42 and 0.65). Sensitivities of the clinical grading to identify the presence of mild nonproliferative retinopathy or worse were 0.53 in ACCORD and 0.84 in FIND. Specificities were 0.97 and 0.96, respectively. Diabetic macular edema agreement in 6,649 eyes of ACCORD participants and 3,366 eyes of FIND participants was similar (kappa 0.35 and 0.41). Sensitivities of the clinical grading to identify diabetic macular edema were 0.44 and 0.53 and specificities were 0.99 and 0.94, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results support the use of clinical information for defining broad severity categories but not for documenting small-to-moderate changes in diabetic retinopathy over time.

Effects of medical therapies on retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether intensive glycemic control, combination therapy for dyslipidemia, and intensive blood-pressure control would limit the progression of diabetic retinopathy in persons with type 2 diabetes. Previous data suggest that these systemic factors may be important in the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: In a randomized trial, we enrolled 10,251 participants with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk for cardiovascular disease to receive either intensive or standard treatment for glycemia (target glycated hemoglobin level, <6.0% or 7.0 to 7.9%, respectively) and also for dyslipidemia (160 mg daily of fenofibrate plus simvastatin or placebo plus simvastatin) or for systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 or <140 mm Hg). A subgroup of 2856 participants was evaluated for the effects of these interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy. RESULTS: At 4 years, the rates of progression of diabetic retinopathy were 7.3% with intensive glycemia treatment, versus 10.4% with standard therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.87; P=0.003); 6.5% with fenofibrate for intensive dyslipidemia therapy, versus 10.2% with placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.87; P=0.006); and 10.4% with intensive blood-pressure therapy, versus 8.8% with standard therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.79; P=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00000620 for the ACCORD study and NCT00542178 for the ACCORD Eye study.)

Lack of association between thiazolidinediones and macular edema in type 2 diabetes: the ACCORD eye substudy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-sectional association of thiazolidinediones with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: The cross-sectional association of DME and visual acuity with thiazolidinediones was examined by means of baseline fundus photographs and visual acuity measurements from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Visual acuity was assessed in 9690 participants in the ACCORD trial, and 3473 of these participants had fundus photographs that were centrally read in a standardized fashion by masked graders to assess DME and retinopathy from October 23, 2003, to March 10, 2006. RESULTS: Among the subsample, 695 (20.0%) people had used thiazolidinediones, whereas 217 (6.2%) people had DME. Thiazolidinedione use was not associated with DME in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.44; P = .95) and adjusted (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = .86) analyses. Significant associations with DME were found for retinopathy severity (P < .001) and age (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.952-0.997; P = .03) but not for hemoglobin A(1c) (P = .06), duration of diabetes (P = .65), sex (P = .72), and ethnicity (P = .20). Thiazolidinedione use was associated with slightly greater visual acuity (0.79 letter; 95% CI, 0.20-1.38; P = .009) of uncertain clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In a cross-sectional analysis of data from the largest study to date, no association was observed between thiazolidinedione exposure and DME in patients with type 2 diabetes; however, we cannot exclude a modest protective or harmful association. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00542178.