Discriminating early-stage diabetic retinopathy with subjective and objective perimetry

F Sabeti, JP van Kleef, RM Iyer, CF Carle, CJ Nolan, RH Chia, T Maddess

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    5 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Introduction: To prevent progression of early-stage diabetic retinopathy, we need functional tests that can distinguish multiple levels of neural damage before classical vasculopathy. To that end, we compared multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry (mfPOP), and two types of subjective automated perimetry (SAP), in persons with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D) with either no retinopathy (noDR) or mild to-moderate non-proliferative retinopathy (mmDR).

    Methods: Both eyes were assessed by two mfPOP test methods that present stimuli within either the central ±15° (OFA15) or ±30° (OFA30), each producing per-region sensitivities and response delays. The SAP tests were 24-2 Short Wavelength Automated Perimetry and 24-2 Matrix perimetry.

    Results: Five of eight mfPOP global indices were significantly different between noDR and mmDR eyes, but none of the equivalent measures differed for SAP. Per-region mfPOP identified significant hypersensitivity and longer delays in the peripheral visual field, verifying earlier findings. Diagnostic power for discrimination of noDR vs. mmDR, and normal controls vs. PwT2D, was much higher for mfPOP than SAP. The mfPOP per-region delays provided the best discrimination. The presence of localized rather than global changes in delay ruled out iris neuropathy as a major factor.

    Discussion: mfPOP response delays may provide new surrogate endpoints for studies of interventions for early-stage diabetic eye damage.
    Original languageEnglish
    Article number1333826
    Number of pages12
    JournalFrontiers in Endocrinology
    Volume14
    Early online date8 Jan 2024
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2024

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Discriminating early-stage diabetic retinopathy with subjective and objective perimetry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this