Psychotic symptom and cannabis relapse in recent-onset psychosis - Prospective study

Background: Cannabis use appears to exacerbate psychotic symptoms and increase risk of psychotic relapse. However, the relative contribution of cannabis use compared with other risk factors is unclear. The influence of psychotic symptoms on cannabis use has received little attention. Aims: To examine the influence of cannabis use on psychotic symptom relapse and the influence of psychotic symptom severity on relapse in cannabis use in the 6 months following hospital admission. Method: At baseline, 84 participants with recent-onset psychosis were assessed and 81 were followed up weekly for 6 months, using telephone and face-to-face interviews. Results: A higher frequency of cannabis use was predictive of psychotic relapse, after controlling for medication adherence, other substance use and duration of untreated psychosis. An increase in psychotic symptoms was predictive of relapse to cannabis use, and medication adherence reduced cannabis relapse risk. Conclusions: The relationship between cannabis use and psychosis may be bidirectional, highlighting the need for early intervention programmes to target cannabis use and psychotic symptom severity in this population. Declaration of interest: None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

Substance misuse in first-episode psychosis: 15-month prospective follow-up study

Background Well-designed prospective studies of substance misuse in first-episode psychosis can improve our understanding of the risks associated with comorbid substance misuse and psychosis. Aims To examine the potential effects of substance misuse on in-patient admission and remission and relapse of positive symptoms in first-episode psychosis. Method The study was a prospective 15-month follow-up investigation of 103 patients with first-episode psychosis recruited from three mental health services. Results Substance misuse was independently associated with increased risk of in-patient admission, relapse of positive symptoms and shorter time to relapse of positive symptoms after controlling for potential confounding factors, Substance misuse was not associated with remission or time to remission of positive symptoms. Heavy substance misuse was associated with increased risk of in-patient admission, relapse and shorter time to relapse. Conclusions Substance misuse is an independent risk factor for a problematic recovery from first-episode psychosis.

How accurate are photographic surrogate markers used to detect macular oedema in the english national Screening Programme?

Introduction: Macular oedema is not directly visible on digital photographs used in screening. Photographic surrogate markers are used to detect patients who may have macular oedema. Evidence suggests that only around 10% of patients with these surrogate markers referred to an ophthalmologist have macular oedema when examined by slit-lamp biomicroscopy. Purpose: The purpose of this audit was to determine how many patients with surrogate markers were truly identified by optical coherence tomography (OCT) as having macular oedema. Method: Data were collected from patients attending digital diabetic retinopathy screening. Patients who presented with surrogate markers for macular oedema also had an OCT scan. The fast macula scan on the Stratus OCT was used and an ophthalmologist reviewed the scans to determine whether macular oedema was present. Results: Out of 66 patients with maculopathy defined as haemorrhages or microaneurysms within one optic disc diameter (DD) of the fovea and visual acuity (VA) worse than 6/9 11 (17%) showed thickening on the OCT, only 4 (6%) had macular oedema. None required laser. Out of 155 patients with maculopathy defined as any exudate within one DD of the fovea or circinate within two DD 45 (29%) showed thickening on the OCT of these 27% required laser. Conclusion: OCT is a useful tool in screening to help identify those who need a true referral to ophthalmology for maculopathy. If exudate is present the chance of having macular oedema and requiring laser treatment is greater than the presence of microaneurysms within one DD and reduced VA.

Rapid access wet AmD referrals using teleophthalmology and a central retinal grading centre

Introduction: We have adapted the existing , optometry diabetic retinopathy screening pathway and software , so that it can be used for wet AMD fast track referral. Purpose: To compare the conventional, optometry wet AMD fast track referral service using FAX transmission, with a teleophthalmology service using colour fundus photography transmitted to a central retinal grading centre. Method: 40 optometry practices involved in diabetic retinopathy screening were enrolled and had modified computer software installed. Referrals were made by conventional fast track FAX to the macular clinic, and patients were photographed by the optometrist and images transmitted to a central grading centre Results of the two pathways were compared in terms of 1)speed of diagnosis and 2)sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of wet AMD. Results: Over a ten month period, 62 consecutive patients were referred. The mean time for conventional pathway was 20.8 days (range 3-34),and for new teleophthalmology pathway was 6.9 days (range 1-13). Sensitivity of technician grading of images was 96%, Specificity 53%, and consultant ophthalmologist was sensitivity 96%, specificiity 87%. The technician showed a learning effect with specificity increasing from 30.7% for first 31 patient cohort, to 70.6% for the second cohort. One patient had images that could not be graded. Conclusion: Rapid referral of wet AMD cases by optometrists using modified diabetic retinopathy screening software, allows fast and accurate diagnosis, and may reduce unnecessary referrals. Retinal grading technicians can be trained to grade wet AMD images.

Evaluating digital diabetic retinopathy screening in people aged 90 years and over

Introduction: The English National Screening Programme determines that all people with diabetes aged 12 and over should be screened annually for diabetic retinopathy (DR) until they die. Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate digital DR screening in patients aged 90 and over to establish whether it is appropriate to cease screening at age 90. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 200 randomly selected patients with diabetes aged 90 and over within the Birmingham and Black Country Screening Programme. Results: 179 (90%) patients attended screening at least once after turning 90 years of age. To date, the mean number of screens per person 90+ was two (range 1–6) and the mean age of the first of these screens was 91 years (range 90–98 years). 133 (74%) were put on annual recall after their first screen in their 90’s, of which 58% had no visible DR bilaterally. 38 (21%) were referred to ophthalmology - 35 (92%) for non-DR reasons and three for maculopathy. Of the 133 patients put on annual recall, 75 (56%) were screened at least once more. Seven improved, 36 remained stable, three became unsuitable and 29 deteriorated. Of the latter, 18 patients were referred to ophthalmology; one of these for DR. Conclusion: Patients with diabetes aged 90 and over are at low risk of sight threatening DR and annual screening in this age group may be unnecessary. However, annual screening does provide opportunistic identification.

Is twelve years old an acceptable age at which to begin Diabetic Retinopathy Screening?

Introduction: The English National Screening Programme for diabetic retinopathy (ENSPDR) states that “all people with diabetes aged 12 years and over should be offered screening” Purpose: The audit aims to assess whether the current guideline is suitable and whether diabetes duration should be taken into account when deciding at what age to start screening patients. Method: Retrospective analysis of 143 randomly selected patients aged twelve years or younger who have attended diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in the Birmingham and Black Country Screening Programme. Results: 98% had Type 1 diabetes and mean visual acuity (VA) was 6/5 (6/4-6/36). 73 were under 12 with 7 the youngest age and 70 were aged 12. Both groups had mean diabetes duration of 5 years (1month-11years). For those under 12, 7/73 (9.6%) had background DR, of these mean diabetes duration was 7 years (6-8) and the youngest aged 8. In those aged 12, 5/70 (7.1%) had background DR; of these mean diabetes duration was 8 years (6-11). In total 12 (8.4%) patients aged 12 years or under developed DR. No patients had retinopathy worse than background changes. One patient was referred to ophthalmology for VAs of 6/12, 6/18 and was diagnosed with optic atrophy so returned to annual screening. Conclusion: The results suggest that the current guideline on when to begin screening should be readdressed as more patients under twelve developed DR than those aged 12. Diabetes duration may help when deciding what age to start screening adolescent patients as DR was not seen in those with disease duration.

Defining response to anti-VEGF therapies in neovascular AMD

The introduction of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has made significant impact on the reduction of the visual loss due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (n-AMD). There are significant inter-individual differences in response to an anti-VEGF agent, made more complex by the availability of multiple anti-VEGF agents with different molecular configurations. The response to anti-VEGF therapy have been found to be dependent on a variety of factors including patient’s age, lesion characteristics, lesion duration, baseline visual acuity (VA) and the presence of particular genotype risk alleles. Furthermore, a proportion of eyes with n-AMD show a decline in acuity or morphology, despite therapy or require very frequent re-treatment. There is currently no consensus as to how to classify optimal response, or lack of it, with these therapies. There is, in particular, confusion over terms such as ‘responder status’ after treatment for n-AMD, ‘tachyphylaxis’ and ‘recalcitrant’ n-AMD. This document aims to provide a consensus on definition/categorisation of the response of n-AMD to anti-VEGF therapies and on the time points at which response to treatment should be determined. Primary response is best determined at 1 month following the last initiation dose, while maintained treatment (secondary) response is determined any time after the 4th visit. In a particular eye, secondary responses do not mirror and cannot be predicted from that in the primary phase. Morphological and functional responses to anti-VEGF treatments, do not necessarily correlate, and may be dissociated in an individual eye. Furthermore, there is a ceiling effect that can negate the currently used functional metrics such as >5 letters improvement when the baseline VA is good (ETDRS>70 letters). It is therefore important to use a combination of both the parameters in determining the response.The following are proposed definitions: optimal (good) response is defined as when there is resolution of fluid (intraretinal fluid; IRF, subretinal fluid; SRF and retinal thickening), and/or improvement of >5 letters, subject to the ceiling effect of good starting VA. Poor response is defined as <25% reduction from the baseline in the central retinal thickness (CRT), with persistent or new IRF, SRF or minimal or change in VA (that is, change in VA of 0+4 letters). Non-response is defined as an increase in fluid (IRF, SRF and CRT), or increasing haemorrhage compared with the baseline and/or loss of >5 letters compared with the baseline or best corrected vision subsequently. Poor or non-response to anti-VEGF may be due to clinical factors including suboptimal dosing than that required by a particular patient, increased dosing intervals, treatment initiation when disease is already at an advanced or chronic stage), cellular mechanisms, lesion type, genetic variation and potential tachyphylaxis); non-clinical factors including poor access to clinics or delayed appointments may also result in poor treatment outcomes. In eyes classified as good responders, treatment should be continued with the same agent when disease activity is present or reactivation occurs following temporary dose holding. In eyes that show partial response, treatment may be continued, although re-evaluation with further imaging may be required to exclude confounding factors. Where there is persistent, unchanging accumulated fluid following three consecutive injections at monthly intervals, treatment may be withheld temporarily, but recommenced with the same or alternative anti-VEGF if the fluid subsequently increases (lesion considered active). Poor or non-response to anti-VEGF treatments requires re-evaluation of diagnosis and if necessary switch to alternative therapies including other anti-VEGF agents and/or with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Idiopathic polypoidal choroidopathy may require treatment with PDT monotherapy or combination with anti-VEGF. A committee comprised of retinal specialists with experience of managing patients with n-AMD similar to that which developed the Royal College of Ophthalmologists Guidelines to Ranibizumab was assembled. Individual aspects of the guidelines were proposed by the committee lead (WMA) based on relevant reference to published evidence base following a search of Medline and circulated to all committee members for discussion before approval or modification. Each draft was modified according to feedback from committee members until unanimous approval was obtained in the final draft. A system for categorising the range of responsiveness of n-AMD lesions to anti-VEGF therapy is proposed. The proposal is based primarily on morphological criteria but functional criteria have been included. Recommendations have been made on when to consider discontinuation of therapy either because of success or futility. These guidelines should help clinical decision-making and may prevent over and/or undertreatment with anti-VEGF therapy.

Is it safe to increase diabetic retinopathy screening intervals in patients with no/background diabetic retinopathy?

Patients who present with background DR should continue to be screened annually as a high prportion of these patients develop sight threatening DR (12%). A low prportion of patients with no DR at baseline were referred for STDR (1.3%). Out of the 51 patients in this category referred only 1 required laser. The authors suggest that patients graded R0M0 could be screened biannually.

Optic Disc Haemorrhage (ODH) audit:should morphology determine referral?

A retrospective analysis of 77 patients who presented with ODH at DR screening in the Birmingham And Black Country Screening Programme between June 2009 -March 2010. Of 77 detected, 34 were referred with possible glaucoma and this was confirmed in 11 cases (26%) of those referred. The complete results suggest that ODH is a high indicayor for glaucoma but that differing morphology of ODH is not a major predictor.