XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Aim: To estimate the number of people with open angle (OAG) and angle closure glaucoma (ACG) in 2010 and 2020. Methods: A review of published data with use of prevalence models. Data from population based studies of age specific prevalence of OAG and ACG that satisfied standard definitions were used to construct prevalence models for OAG and ACG by age, sex, and ethnicity, weighting data proportional to sample size of each study. Models were combined with UN world population projections for 2010 and 2020 to derive the estimated number with glaucoma. Results: There will be 60.5 million people with OAG and ACG in 2010, increasing to 79.6 million by 2020, and of these, 74% will have OAG. Women will comprise 55% of OAG, 70% of ACG, and 59% of all glaucoma in 2010. Asians will represent 47% of those with glaucoma and 87% of those with ACG. Bilateral blindness will be present in 4.5 million people with OAG and 3.9 million people with ACG in 2010, rising to 5.9 and 5.3 million people in 2020, respectively. Conclusions: Glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness worldwide, disproportionately affecting women and Asians.

The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020

AIM: To estimate the prevalence of glaucoma among people worldwide. METHODS: Available published data on glaucoma prevalence were reviewed to determine the relation of open angle and angle closure glaucoma with age in people of European, African, and Asian origin. A comparison was made with estimated world population data for the year 2000. RESULTS: The number of people with primary glaucoma in the world by the year 2000 is estimated at nearly 66.8 million, with 6.7 million suffering from bilateral blindness. In developed countries, fewer than 50% of those with glaucoma are aware of their disease. In the developing world, the rate of known disease is even lower. CONCLUSIONS: Glaucoma is the second leading cause of vision loss in the world. Improved methods of screening and therapy for glaucoma are urgently needed.

https://bjo.bmj.com/content/bjophthalmol/80/5/389.full.pdf

Number of people with glaucoma worldwide.

Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

https://www.science-open.com/document_file/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279/PubMedCentral/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Natural History of Open Angle Glaucoma Smong Control Participants in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial

:Purpose.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adaptability of myopic children participating in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET) to the use of progressive addition lenses (PALs) with a modified fitting protocol of setting the distance fitting cross 4 mm above the pup

Adaptability of myopic children to progressive addition lenses with a modified fitting protocol in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET).

A sloped piecemeal Gaussian model for characterising foveal pit shape.

Ocular melanomas are eye tumors composed of melanocytic cells with malignant characteristics. Most ocular melanomas arise from uveal melanocytes distributed throughout the stroma of the choroid, ciliary body, and iris; conjuctival melanocytes may also be the cells of origin for melanomas [1]. Since conjunctival and uveal melanocytes share a common embryologic origin with melanocytes of the skin from the neural crest [2], investigators have suggested the possibility of similar etiologies for ocular and cutaneous melanoma [3, 4]. While both melanomas share certain clinical and epidemiologic characteristics, other factors demonstrate no correlation. This issue needs further investigation, as discussed in this review.

Epidemiology of Ocular Melanoma

Purpose: To describe longitudinal changes in lens thickness in myopic children in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET) and to investigate the association between these changes and myopia progression.Methods: Four-hundred sixty-nine 6 to <12-year-old children with −1.25 to −4.50 D of myopia were enrolled in COMET, a clinical trial comparing single vision lenses (SVLs) versus progressive addition lenses (PALs) for slowing myopia. Children remained in their original lenses for 5 years and then could wear contact lenses, SVLs or PALs. Myopia by cycloplegic autorefraction (Nidek ARK 700A) and ocular components, including lens thickness, by A-scan ultrasound (Sonomed A2500) were measured annually over 11 years. Analyses of lens thickness were based on right eye data from 426 children with refractions fit with Gompertz functions. Longitudinal lens thickness measurements for each participant were fit with a third-degree polynomial function, and average polynomial functions were calculated for...

/pdf/longitudinal-changes-in-lens-thickness-in-myopic-children-5dck9yozhf.pdf

Leslie Hyman

Papers

Natural History of Open Angle Glaucoma Smong Control Participants in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial

Adaptability of myopic children to progressive addition lenses with a modified fitting protocol in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET).

A sloped piecemeal Gaussian model for characterising foveal pit shape.

Epidemiology of Ocular Melanoma

Longitudinal Changes in Lens Thickness in Myopic Children Enrolled in the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET)