Time filter

Source Type

Scanlon P.H.,Gloucestershire Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group | Loftus J.,Pfizer | Starita C.,Pfizer | Stratton I.M.,Gloucestershire Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group
Diabetic Medicine

Aims: To examine the relationship between visual acuity in each eye and Quality of Life (QoL) outcomes in people with diabetic macular oedema. Methods: Cross sectional retrospective analysis of data collected at baseline in 289 people entered into a randomized clinical trial with diabetic macular oedema which investigated the safety and efficacy of a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, pegaptanib sodium. At the baseline visit, visual acuity was measured through refraction and using retro-illuminated modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Log MAR charts, and patient health-related QoL was determined using the European Quality of Life EQ-5D-3L and the Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI-VFQ25). A regression analysis with QoL score from each vision-related domain as the dependent variable was fitted using linear and quadratic terms of the better and worse eye, age, gender, adjusted for number of concurrent conditions, ethnicity and level of diabetes control. Results: For all vision-related QoL domains from NEI-VFQ25 and EQ-5D-3L except ocular pain, both visual acuity in the better-seeing and the worse-seeing eye gave a significant increase in correlation coefficient over that obtained from clinical and demographic data. The NEI-VFQ25 correlation was most closely associated with a weighted visual acuity measure of 0.75 in the better and 0.25 in the worse eye or 0.60 in the better and 0.40 in the worse eye. Conclusions: We recommend that a weighted visual acuity measure from both eyes is considered in future diabetic macular oedema trials. © 2014 The Authors. Source

Smith C.J.,Royal Alexandria Hospital | George J.T.,Diabetes Trials Unit | Warriner D.,Royal Infirmary | McGrane D.J.,Southern General Hospital | And 7 more authors.
BMC Medical Education

Background: There is an increasing prevalence of diabetes. Doctors in training, irrespective of specialty, will have patients with diabetes under their care. The aim of this further evaluation of the TOPDOC Diabetes Study data was to identify if there was any variation in confidence in managing diabetes depending on the geographical location of trainees and career aspirations. Methods: An online national survey using a pre-validated questionnaire was administered to trainee doctors. A 4-point confidence rating scale was used to rate confidence in managing aspects of diabetes care and a 6-point scale used to quantify how often trainees would contribute to the management of patients with diabetes. Responses were grouped depending on which UK country trainees were based and their intended career choice. Results: Trainees in Northern Ireland reported being less confident in IGT diagnosis, use of IV insulin and peri-operative management and were less likely to adjust oral treatment, contact specialist, educate lifestyle, and optimise treatment. Trainees in Scotland were less likely to contact a specialist, but more likely to educate on lifestyle, change insulin, and offer follow-up advice. In Northern Ireland, Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) training in diagnosis was felt less adequate, PG training in emergencies less adequate, and reporting of need for further training higher. Trainees in Wales felt UG training to be inadequate. In Scotland more trainees felt UG training in diagnosis and optimising treatment was inadequate. Physicians were more likely to report confidence in managing patients with diabetes and to engage in different aspects of diabetes care. Aspiring physicians were less likely to feel the need for more training in diabetes care; however a clear majority still felt they needed more training in all aspects of care. Conclusions: Doctors in training have poor confidence levels dealing with diabetes related care issues. Although there is variability between different groups of trainees according to geographical location and career aspirations, this is a UK wide issue. There should be a UK wide standardised approach to improving training for junior doctors in diabetes care with local training guided by specific needs. © 2014 Smith et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source

Keenan T.D.L.,University of Manchester | Sparrow J.M.,University of Bristol | Stratton I.M.,Gloucestershire Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group | Scanlon P.,Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust | Scanlon P.,Gloucestershire Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group
Eye (Basingstoke)

Aims: To report estimates of the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and maculopathy grades for a large cohort of patients managed by the UK hospital eye service (HES). Methods: Anonymised data were extracted from 30 UK NHS hospital trusts using a single ophthalmic electronic medical record (EMR) for the period from April 2000 to November 2010 to create the National Ophthalmology Database (NOD). From 2007, the EMR facilitated capture of a nationally agreed-upon standardised data set (DR Structured Assessment) relating to the presence or absence of clinical signs of DR and maculopathy. An algorithm in the software automatically calculated the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study grades of retinopathy and maculopathy. Results: Between 2007 and 2010, 307 538 patients had data on the NOD, with 76 127 (24.8%) patients having been recorded as having diabetes. The proportion of patients with diabetes who had a structured assessment increased from 50.7% (2007) to 86.8% (2010). In each NHS year, 12.6-20.6% of eyes with structured assessments had no DR; 59.6-67.3% had non-proliferative DR; and 18.3-20.9% had active or regressed proliferative DR. Clinically significant macular oedema was present in 15.8-18.1% of eyes, and in 8.7-10.0% of eyes, this involved the central macula. Conclusion: This study provides contemporary estimates of the prevalence of retinopathy and maculopathy grades in a large cohort of patients with diabetes managed by the UK HES. Centre-involving diabetic macular oedema, potentially amenable to anti-VEGF therapy, is present in the eyes of almost 10% of these patients. This information is useful for clinicians, health-care economists, and commissioners involved in planning and delivering diabetic eye services. © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. Source

Scanlon P.H.,Gloucestershire Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group | Scanlon P.H.,The Warehouse | Aldington S.J.,Gloucestershire Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group | Stratton I.M.,Gloucestershire Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group
Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology

There is currently an epidemic of diabetes in the world, principally type 2 diabetes that is linked to changing lifestyle, obesity, and increasing age of the population. Latest estimates from the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) forecasts a rise from 366 million people worldwide to 552 million by 2030. Type 1 diabetes is more common in the Northern hemisphere with the highest rates in Finland and there is evidence of a rise in some central European countries, particularly in the younger children under 5 years of age. Modifiable risk factors for progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) are blood glucose, blood pressure, serum lipids, and smoking. Nonmodifiable risk factors are duration, age, genetic predisposition, and ethnicity. Other risk factors are pregnancy, microaneurysm count in an eye, microaneurysm formation rate, and the presence of any DR in the second eye. DR, macular edema (ME), and proliferative DR (PDR) develop with increased duration of diabetes and the rates are dependent on the above risk factors. In one study of type 1 diabetes, the median individual risk for the development of early retinal changes was 9.1 years of diabetes duration. Another study reported the 25 year incidence of proliferative retinopathy among population-based cohort of type 1 patients with diabetes was 42.9%. In recent years, people with diabetes have lower rates of progression than historically to PDR and severe visual loss, which may reflect better control of glucose, blood pressure, and serum lipids, and earlier diagnosis. Source

Scanlon P.H.,Gloucestershire Diabetic Retinopathy Research Group | Scanlon P.H.,The Warehouse | Provins E.K.,The Warehouse | Craske S.,Mountain Jetty Ltd | And 4 more authors.
Journal of Medical Screening

Objectives: Diabetic Retinopathy screening services aim to reduce the risk of sight loss amongst patients with diabetes. The rising incidence of diabetes in England and the operational need to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of screening lists led to a pilot study of electronic extraction of data from primary care. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of updating the single collated list of patients eligible for diabetic eye screening using extracts from electronic patient records in primary care. Setting and Methods: The Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (GDESP) provides screening for 85 General Practices in the county. Of these, 54 using Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) practice management system software agreed to participate in this study. The screening list held in 2009 by the Gloucestershire DESP of 14,209 patients known to have diabetes was audited against a list created with automatic extraction from General Practice records of patients marked with the diabetes Read Code C10. Those subsequently screened and referred to the Hospital Eye service were fo llowed up.Results: The Gloucestershire DESP manual list covering the 54 EMIS practices comprised 14,771 people with diabetes. The audit process identified an additional 709 (4.8%) patients coded C10, including 23 diagnosed more than 5 years ago, and 20 patients under the age of 20 who were diagnosed more than a year ago. Conclusion: Automatic extraction of data from General Practice identified 709 patients coded as having diabetes not previously known to the Gloucestershire DESP. © The Author(s) 2013. Source

Discover hidden collaborations