Abstract
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of preventable vision loss in the in the U. S., and DR screening is essential to prevent blindness. Yet minority populations have consistently ...lower DR screening rates than Non-Hispanic Whites and knowledge about barriers versus facilitators for completion of DR screening in these groups remains scant. Improvement in DR Screening rates in safety net populations has been observed after placing digital retinal cameras in primary care sites to capture images where patients get their basic health care. In this study, we therefore assessed DR screening in patients at time of hospitalization as a possible additional site to capture unscreened patients with diabetes. We identified patient with diabetes admitted for any reason to a safety net hospital to evaluate perceived barriers to DR screening. We performed an anonymous survey in English or Spanish in 156 hospitalized adult patients with diabetes during hospital stays between 10/2019-12/2021, using a convenience sample. Barriers specified in the survey were derived from the literature. The study population had a mean +SD age of 50+10.5 years, were predominantly male 72.4%, of low-income 83.7% <$25,000/year and minority groups Latinos 79.5% and African American 10.3%. Diabetes duration was >5years in 63.6% of patients. Reported DR screening rate in the 12 months prior to admission was only 31.4%, despite 97% of patients confirming they were aware that diabetes causes impaired vision and blindness. The main perceived barriers to DR screening identified in the survey were financial 50%, transportation 22% and depression 17%. There were no significant differences in the number or nature of perceived barriers in those who reported DR screening vs. those who did not. Surprisingly, the pandemic appeared to have little impact on DR screening rates. Comparison of patients surveyed before (n=96; 10/2019-03/20) and after COVID lockdown (n=60; 08/2020-12/2021), did not show any significant differences in patient demographics, number or nature of perceived barriers, or DR screening rates (32% vs 30%). However, DR screening among patients without a Primary Care Provider (PCP) was considerably lower compared to patients with a PCP, 10% vs 49% (p<0. 001). In summary, this study reveals low prior outpatient DR screening rates in hospitalized patients with diabetes in low-income minorities in a safety-net hospital, and identifies potential remediable barriers associated with this. The results suggest that cost and transport barriers could be addressed by implementation of DR screening during hospitalization in safety net hospitals. These results also emphasize the significance of a having a PCP. We conclude that inpatient DR screening and facilitating PCP-patient connections might lead to improvement in DR screening rates and thus prevent blindness in this segment of the diabetes population.
Presentation: No date and time listed
Patients report that adhering to diet is the most challenging aspect of diabetes management. Provision of diet education is often delegated to health care providers, despite a lack of nutrition ...education and training and limited awareness of environmental and cultural challenges faced by patients. Aim. We examined perceived barriers to diet self-management among low-income minority patients with type 2 diabetes and their health care providers within a single ecosystem, to test whether providers understood patient barriers. Method. We surveyed 149 members of a safety-net clinic (99 patients, 50 providers), using barriers derived from the literature. Binomial logistic regression was applied to investigate relationships between barriers and patients’ sociodemographic variables and Pearson’s χ2 was used to compare differences in perceived barriers between patients and providers. Results. Providers expressed divergent perceptions of patients’ barriers to healthy eating, including more total barriers and little agreement with patients on their relative importance. Largest differences in providers’ perceptions of patient barriers included poor motivation, high use of fast food, inadequate family support, and lack of cooking skills—all suggesting patient inadequacy. In contrast, patients showed evidence of high motivation—in rate of blood glucose measurement and desire for diet education. Patients identified primary care providers as a main source of nutrition education, yet providers indicated lack of time for diet discussion and preferred other staff do the teaching. Conclusion. The findings from this study strongly suggest that health systems need to consider patient, provider, and system barriers when implementing nutrition education and management programs.
Despite availability of screening for diabetic retinopathy, testing is underused by many low-income and racial/ethnic minority patients with diabetes. We examined perceived barriers to diabetic ...retinopathy screening among low-income patients and their health care providers and provider staffers.
We collected survey data from 101 patients with diabetes and 44 providers and staffers at a safety-net clinic where annual diabetic retinopathy screening rates were low. Barriers specified in the survey were derived from the literature.
Patients surveyed (mean standard deviation age, 54.0 7.7 y; 41% were male) were primarily Hispanics (70%) and African Americans (27%) of low socioeconomic status. Overall, 55% of patients received diabetic retinopathy screening in the previous year. Patients who could not explain why this screening is needed reported more barriers than patients who could (2.5 vs 1.4 barriers, P = .02). Fewer patients reported that they experienced barriers such as transportation (15%), language issues (15%), cultural beliefs or myths (4%), denial (8%), and fear (5%), which providers and staffers considered very or extremely important (all P < .001). Financial burdens (26%) and depression (22%) were most commonly reported by patients as barriers, yet providers and staffers did not rate these barriers as important, P < .001.
Patients and health care providers had markedly divergent perceptions of barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening. Patients with poor understanding of the need for screening were more likely to report such barriers. These results suggest a need for active community engagement to find key elements for education programs and other interventions to increase rates of diabetic retinopathy screening, particularly among low-income, minority populations.
Abstract
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a duration-dependent complication of diabetes (DM). Yet some people with DM do not develop DR despite long disease duration. We evaluated such a group in search ...of novel factors that might signal protection from DR, using a large cohort of Latinos with type 2 DM and readable retinal images in the GOLDR study (n=614). Participants were phenotyped and 7-field retinal images were evaluated using Airlie House criteria. We identified 90 participants with DM>10y without evidence for DR (NoDR). We compared this group of patients with another group more susceptible to DR with evidence for earlier onset DR, in DM <10y duration (EoDR, n=103). Duration of diabetes in NoDR was x+SEM 14.2+ 0.6y, and in EoDR, 4.3+ 2.9 y (p<0.001), a 10-y spread. We found that most of the typical DR-associated risk factors could not explain DR protection in NoDR, including age, sex, age at DM onset, systolic blood pressure (SBP), percent insulin users, duration of hypertension, fasting plasma glucose, A1C, urine albumin/creatinine ratio and estimate glomerular filtration rate; these parameters were not significantly different in the two groups. Protective factors that did emerge were female sex (p=0.02), lower diastolic BP 69.1+0.9 vs. 72.5+0.9 (p<0.01) and lower alcohol intake 3.1+0.8 vs. 7.8+2 de/w (14g drink equivalents/week; p=0.025). In a sensitivity analysis to determine whether sex accounted for the apparent effect of alcohol on DR, we evaluated the men in the study, who were more likely to be drinkers. Alcohol consumption was compared in men with DR who reported drinking alcohol (n=93) compared to men without DR who also reported drinking (n=53). Men without DR reported significantly less alcohol intake, 14.8+2.4 vs. 25.9 +3.3 de/w in those with DR (P<0.01), suggesting that a possible protective benefit of lower alcohol consumption observed in NoDR was not likely to be mediated by the presence of fewer men in that cohort. In summary, type 2 diabetic patients with no evidence of DR after 10y were more likely to be women, have a lower diastolic BP, and who imbibed less alcohol when compared with a more accelerated DR subgroup with <10yrs duration of DM. We conclude that in type 2 DM Latino patients, a focus on alcohol intake may be a useful management strategy in addition to traditional medication-based BP control and renal protection, as well as a pathophysiological pathway for DR worthy of investigation.
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a major cause of blindness in the United States. Prevention relies on periodic DR screening, yet overall national screening rates are not optimal, especially in ...low-income, minority patients. We prospectively evaluated show rates for prescheduled teleretinal DR screening appointments in diabetic patients (
n
= 301) in a large safety-net clinic in South Central Los Angeles. Patients were predominately African American (
n
= 88) and Latino (
n
= 200). Patients received either usual care telephone reminders or automated reminder calls in addition to usual care. The overall mean (SEM) show rate for DR screening, irrespective of reminder method, was low: 54
+
1.03%. Show rates with usual care alone were 46.3
+
2.6%, and with automated reminders added, 59.9
+
1.47% (
p
= 0.036). Show rate with usual care amongst African Americans was 23.6
+
6.46% compared with 53.2
+
3.41% for Latinos (
p
= 0.025). When automated calling was added, the show rate doubled amongst African Americans, to 51.6
+
3.96% (
p
= 0.002) with a slightly higher, non-significant show rate in Latinos. In summary, show rates for pre-scheduled teleretinal DR screening appointments were low with usual care alone in a safety-net clinic, with evidence for a racial disparity amongst low–income, minority patients with diabetes. Addition of a pre-recorded automated reminder call improved show rates, and corrected much of the racial disparity observed. Greater focus on failed appointments as an explanation for low DR screening rates and racial disparities, and as a potentially remediable target with automated reminders, may improve DR screening rates and reduce blindness in low-income minority patients with diabetes.
Inflammation is associated with diabetic retinopathy development and progression, and previous studies have demonstrated that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have anti-inflammatory properties. ...Therefore, the goal of this study was to determine if omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), are associated with decreased risk and severity of retinopathy in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
In a combined population of 1,356 individuals with type 2 diabetes from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Genetics of Latino Diabetic Retinopathy cohorts, odds ratios using logistic regression were determined to assess the association between polyunsaturated fatty acids and retinopathy.
In 1,356 participants with type 2 diabetes, individuals in the fourth quartile of DHA were 17% less likely to have retinopathy compared with the first quartile ( P = 0.009, CI: 0.72-0.95). Secondary analysis revealed 38% lower severity of retinopathy in individuals in the fourth quartile compared with the first quartile of DHA ( P = 0.006; CI: 0.44-0.87) and EPA + DHA ( P = 0.004; CI: 0.44-0.85). No significant associations were observed between EPA and retinopathy.
DHA is inversely associated with the presence and severity of diabetic retinopathy. Increased intake of dietary sources of DHA may provide some protection against retinopathy in individuals with type 2 diabetes and warrants more research as a preventative option.
IMPORTANCE: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness in adults worldwide. Early detection and intervention can prevent blindness; however, many patients do not receive their ...recommended annual diabetic eye examinations, primarily owing to limited access. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) system (the EyeArt Automated DR Detection System, version 2.1.0) in detecting both more-than-mild diabetic retinopathy (mtmDR) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (vtDR). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic study was preregistered (NCT03112005) and conducted from April 17, 2017, to May 30, 2018. A total of 942 individuals aged 18 years or older who had diabetes gave consent to participate at 15 primary care and eye care facilities. Data analysis was performed from February 14 to July 10, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Retinal imaging for the autonomous AI system and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) reference standard determination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome measures included the sensitivity and specificity of the AI system in identifying participants’ eyes with mtmDR and/or vtDR by 2-field undilated fundus photography vs a rigorous clinical reference standard comprising reading center grading of 4 wide-field dilated images using the ETDRS severity scale. Secondary outcome measures included the evaluation of imageability, dilated-if-needed analysis, enrichment correction analysis, worst-case imputation, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Of 942 consenting individuals, 893 patients (1786 eyes) met the inclusion criteria and completed the study protocol. The population included 449 men (50.3%). Mean (SD) participant age was 53.9 (15.2) years (median, 56; range, 18-88 years), 655 were White (73.3%), and 206 had type 1 diabetes (23.1%). Sensitivity and specificity of the AI system were high in detecting mtmDR (sensitivity: 95.5%; 95% CI, 92.4%-98.5% and specificity: 85.0%; 95% CI, 82.6%-87.4%) and vtDR (sensitivity: 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.1%-100% and specificity: 89.0%; 95% CI, 87.0%-91.1%) without dilation. Imageability was high without dilation, with the AI system able to grade 87.4% (95% CI, 85.2%-89.6%) of the eyes with reading center grades. When eyes with ungradable results were dilated per the protocol, the imageability improved to 97.4% (95% CI, 96.4%-98.5%), with the sensitivity and specificity being similar. After correcting for enrichment, the mtmDR specificity increased to 87.8% (95% CI, 86.3%-89.5%) and the sensitivity remained similar; for vtDR, both sensitivity (97.0%; 95% CI, 91.2%-100%) and specificity (90.1%; 95% CI, 89.4%-91.5%) improved. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This prospective multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic study noted safety and accuracy with use of the EyeArt Automated DR Detection System in detecting both mtmDR and, for the first time, vtDR, without physician assistance. These findings suggest that improved access to accurate, reliable diabetic eye examinations may increase adherence to recommended annual screenings and allow for accelerated referral of patients identified as having vtDR.
Context and Objective:
Insulin resistance and chronic inflammation are key elements in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes. We hypothesized that similar mechanisms could have a role in the ...development of diabetic retinopathy (DR), an important microvascular complication in Latinos with type 2 diabetes.
Design and Setting:
A cross-sectional, family-based, observational cohort study.
Patients:
Latino subjects with type 2 diabetes (n = 507), ascertained in families via a proband with known diabetes duration of 10 years or more and/or with DR, were included.
Main Outcome Measures:
Serum adiponectin was measured and insulin sensitivity was estimated using homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). DR was assessed by seven-field digital fundus photography and graded using the modified Airlie House classification and the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Scale (range of severity levels, 10–85).
Results:
Fasting adiponectin concentrations were elevated in patients with DR compared to those without (12.9 ± 0.5 vs 10.5 ± 0.5 μg/mL; P = .0004) and remained significant after adjusting for multiple covariates (age, gender, body mass index, glycosylated hemoglobin, diabetes duration, statin use, blood pressure, and renal function; P = .013 to .018). Adiponectin was also positively correlated with severity of DR in patients with nonproliferative DR (P < .0003), significant also after all covariate adjustments (P = .018). When the proliferative DR group was included, this relationship was attenuated by adjustments, possibly an influence of estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction in the proliferative DR group. HOMA-IR was not different in the DR and non-DR groups. Although elevated, adiponectin retained a typical inverse relationship with HOMA-IR in DR, similar to that seen in the non-DR group.
Conclusions:
Serum adiponectin is elevated in DR, is positively correlated with DR severity in Latinos with type 2 diabetes, and maintains a relationship to insulin sensitivity. Adiponectin, whether as a marker or biological mediator, may play an important role in DR, which appears to be independent of its relationship to insulin sensitivity.
PDF
