Diabetes and Diabetic Retinopathy in a Mexican-American Population: Proyecto VER

Diabetes and Diabetic Retinopathy in a Mexican-American Population: Proyecto VER – Brief Article

Sheila K. West

SHEILA K. WEST [1]

RONALD KLEIN [2]

JORGE RODRIGUEZ [3]

BEATRIZ MUNOZ [1]

AIMEE T. BROMAN [1]

ROSARIO SANCHEZ [1]

ROBERT SNYDER [3]

OBJECTIVES — The prevalence rate of diabetes is probably higher in Hispanics than in Caucasians, although there is controversy about differences in the risk of diabetic retinopathy. The purpose of the study is to determine the prevalence rates of diabetes and diabetic retinopathy in a population-based study of Hispanics aged [greater than or equal to] 40 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — Proyecto VER is a random sample of Hispanic populations aged [greater than or equal to] 40 years in Arizona. A total of 4,774 individuals (71.6% of the eligible sample) completed the examinations. Diabetes was defined as self-report of a physician diagnosis or [HbA.sub.1c] value of [greater than or equal to] 7.0%. Diabetic retinopathy was assessed on stereo fundus photographs of fields 1,2, and 4.

RESULTS — The prevalence rate of diabetes in the Hispanic community (individuals 40 years of age) was 22%. The prevalence rate of diabetic retinopathy (DR) was 48%; 32% had moderate to severe nonproliferative and proliferative retinopathy. DR increased with increasing duration of diabetes and increasing level of [HbA.sub.1c]. The prevalence rate of DR-like changes in the sample of individuals without diabetic retinopathy was 15% and was not associated with hypertension, systolic blood pressure, or diastolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS — The prevalence rate of diabetes in this population of Hispanics is high, almost twice that of Caucasians. The prevalence rate of DR is high but similar to reports in a Caucasian population. The prevalence rate of 9% moderate to severe retinopathy in the newly diagnosed group suggests that efforts to improve detection and treatment of diabetes in Hispanics may be warranted.

In the U.S., the Hispanic population is the second largest minority group and, if the current trends continue, it will become the largest minority group in this century [1]. This trend has led to considerable interest in the health and wellbeing of this population, which has ramifications for provision and utilization of health services. Several studies have pinpointed, in particular, the high prevalence rate of diabetes among Hispanics of Mexican origin [2-6]. The prevalence rate in adults varies from 10-24% but is generally 2- to 2.5-fold higher in Mexican-Americans than in non-Hispanic whites [2-4,6,7]. Mexican-Americans with diabetes seem to have more severe hyperglycemia as well, indicating poorer control [8].

However, there are conflicting reports about the prevalence rate of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in Mexican-Americans with diabetes; one study reported no greater risk compared with non-Hispanic whites, whereas others reported twofold or higher risk [9-11] The conflicting prevalence rates from these populations are unlikely to be due to differences in the definition of retinopathy, because fundus photographs were graded for all three studies by the same center in Wisconsin. In part, the discrepancies may be due to the smaller numbers in the San Luis Valley study (n 187) and San Antonio Heart Study (n = 258). In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the sensitivity of diagnosing retinopathy using one photograph taken with a nonmydriatic camera is an issue.

Proyecto VER (Vision Evaluation and Research), a population-based study of 4,774 residents of the Hispanic communities of Nogales and Tucson, Arizona, was designed in part to determine the prevalence rate of DR in the population with diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Selection of population

Proyecto VER is a population-based survey of noninstitutionalized Hispanics aged [greater than or equal to] 40 years living in Pima and Santa Cruz counties in Arizona. Based on the 1990 census, random samples of block groups that contained at least 5% Hispanic residents aged [greater than or equal to] 40 years in two strata (Nogales and Tucson) were selected. The probability of selection within the strata was proportional to the percentage of the Hispanic population aged 40 years. Every other household of the selected block groups in Nogales was listed and eligibility was determined. In Tucson, two-thirds of the households in selected block groups were listed; the change in listing procedures was due to substantial residential changes in Tucson since 1990, which resulted in fewer than expected eligible households in the selected block groups.

Procedures

Eligibility criteria for members in selected households included self-described Hispanics aged [greater than or equal to]40 years. After eligibility was determined, household members were recruited for interviews and clinical examinations at a central clinical site. Informed consent (in Spanish or English) was obtained following procedures approved by the Johns Hopkins Hospital Committee on Clinical Investigation. Eligible individuals who refused to participate were asked to respond to a short questionnaire, which included a question about the presence of diabetes.

The randomly selected block groups included 20,622 households, and 4,255 households (21%) had at least one eligible resident. From the 4,255 eligible households, 6,659 subjects were identified, 4,774 (72%) of whom completed the home questionnaire and the clinic visit. An additional 955 subjects (14%) completed the home questionnaire only, and 229 subjects (3%) refused the home questionnaire but completed the short form; the remaining 701 subjects (11%) refused to provide any information except for gender, Hispanic origin, and, in some cases, age.

Most home interviews (80%) were conducted in Spanish by trained bilingual interviewers. Questions included whether the diagnosis of diabetes had been confirmed by a physician and when the diagnosis had been made. Subjects responding affirmatively regarding physician diagnosis were also asked whether they were being treated with insulin, pills, diet, herbal remedies, or nothing.

At the clinic site, blood was drawn for the determination of [HbA.sub.1c] level. All blood was stored in a refrigerator for no more than 5 days and shipped on ice to the reference lab (Dr. Michael Steffes, University of Minnesota). [HbA.sub.1c] level was determined using high-performance liquid chromatography and standard controls, as described for the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (12). Previous work in this laboratory has shown identical mean values in split samples and no assay drift over time (12).

Stereo fundus photographs of fields 1, 2, and 4 were taken through dilated pupils, using a Zeiss 30[degrees] fundus camera (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). These fields are as follows: center of the optic disc (field 1), center of the macula (field 2), and superior temporal to the macula (field 4). They were graded for the presence and severity of DR following a protocol developed by the Wisconsin Ocular Epidemiology Reading Center, Madison, Wisconsin. A preliminary and detailed grading was performed by one of the two graders, using the Wisconsin adaptation of the modified Airlie House classification of DR; discrepancies between the gradings were resolved by an edit by a senior grader, and if all three gradings were still discrepant, they were resolved by adjudication by a senior ophthalmologist (R.K.) [13,14].

Fundus photographs of at least one eye were obtained in 89% of subjects. Of the 11% of subjects for whom photographs were not obtained, the primary reasons were medical (contraindications to dilation), physical limitations (wheelchair-bound), refusal, and film lost in processing. No significant differences by gender or prior knowledge of diabetes status existed between those with and without photographs; however, older participants were less likely to have had photographs taken (data not shown). In 20 cases, DR could not be graded based on the photographs, primarily due to media opacity.

Blood pressure was measured according to a standardized protocol; three measurements of systolic and diastolic pressure were taken, and an average of the second and third measurements were used (15). Hypertension was defined as 1) a positive response to the question as to whether the patient had been told that he or she had hypertension and was currently under treatment for hypertension, 2) systolic blood pressure [greater than or equal to]160 mmHg, or 3) diastolic blood pressure [greater than or equal to]90 mmHg.

Definition of diabetes

Definite diabetes was defined as either an affirmative response to the question of whether diabetes had been diagnosed by a physician or having an [HbA.sub.1C] of 7.0% or greater [16,17]. Questionable diabetes was defined as those who reported no diagnosis of diabetes but who had [HbA.sub.lC] values between 6.5 and 7.0%. All other subjects were classified as not having diabetes.

Definition of diabetic retinopathy

Photographs from all subjects with questionable and definite diabetes as well as a 5% random sample of individuals without diabetes were sent for masked grading. For these analyses, grades 10-13 were considered absence of DR, grades 14-20 were considered very early nonproliferative DR, grades 31-51 were considered moderate to severe nonproliferative DR, and grades 60 and higher were considered evidence of proliferative DR. Macular edema was graded separately. If at least one eye had evidence of DR, the subject was considered to have DR.

Statistical analyses

The prevalence rates of diabetes and DR are presented, stratified by age and gender. Differences in characteristics of participants and nonparticipants were assessed using [[chi].sup.2] test or, when age-adjusted, Mantel Haenzel tests. After adjustment for age, subjects with self-reported diabetes were as likely to participate in the project as those who did not report diabetes.

The association of blood pressure or hypertension with early signs of DR in subjects without diabetes was assessed using logistic regression models, with adjustments for age and gender. Comparisons of our data with data from other studies were performed using the duration-specific rates from other studies and data supplied by Scot Moss and Dr. Ronald Klein from the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (WESDR) cohort. For these comparisons, subjects with type 2 diabetes were defined as those not taking insulin or insulin users with onset of diabetes at [greater than or equal to]30 years of age. In addition, the study from San Antonio classified insulin users with onset [greater than or equal to]30 years of age who also had BMI [greater than or equal to]30 kg/[cm.sup.2] as having type 2 diabetes.

Duration of diabetes was calculated as time from year of diagnoses (as reported by the participant) to year of the examination at Proyecto VER.

RESULTS — Differences in participation rates by age and gender were shown (Table 1). Men were less likely to participate, and the youngest and oldest individuals were also slightly less likely to complete both the home questionnaire and the clinic visit. Self-report of diabetes was no different between the participants and nonparticipants after age adjustment.

As expected, the distribution of values for [HbA.sub.1C] in the total population was skewed (median value 5.9%). The values ranged from 3.0 to 16.6%; the 25th percentile value was 5.3%, and the 75th percentile value was 6.2%. Among the people with diabetes in this study, 15% were included based only on an [HbA.sub.1C] value of 7% or higher (“newly diagnosed”).

The prevalence rates of diabetes increased by age and were slightly higher in women (Table 2). The overall rate of diabetes in this population was 22%, increasing from 12% in subjects aged 40-49 years to 34% in subjects aged 70-79 years. Of our group of 1,044 individuals with diabetes, 21 (2.0%) were insulin users who had onset of diabetes before 30 years of age. The prevalence rate of questionable diabetes (defined as those who reported no diabetes but who had [HbA.sub.1C] levels between 6.5 and 6.9%) did not increase consistently with age, and no gender differences were noted.

The prevalence rate of any DR in subjects with diabetes was 48%; 32% had moderate to severe nonproliferative or proliferative retinopathy (Table 3). Of the 5% subsample of subjects without diabetes for whom fundus photographs were obtained, the prevalence of very early DR-like changes was 15.5%, slightly lower than in subjects with diabetes or questionable diabetes. Subjects with diabetes had more severe changes than subjects with questionable or no diabetes. Clinically significant macular edema was present in 5.1% of the subjects with diabetes. No proliferative DR or clinically significant macular edema was noted in subjects without diabetes.

The very early DR changes did not seem to be associated with increasing systolic or diastolic blood pressure or self-report of hypertension in this population (Table 4). Within the group of subjects who did not have diabetes, the prevalence rate of having very early DR-like changes seemed to increase with increasing diastolic or systolic blood pressure, but the test for trend was not significant, nor was Fisher’s exact test. Blood pressure, adjusting for age and gender, was not associated with very early DR (P = 0.21 for systolic and diastolic blood pressure).

Among Hispanics with diabetes in this study, the severity of retinopathy increased with increasing level of [HbA.sub.1c] (Fig. 1). The severity of retinopathy also increased with increasing reported duration of diabetes (Fig. 2); 9.3% of individuals with moderate to severe nonproliferative or proliferative retinopathy were newly diagnosed during the study. As discussed by others, the onset of diabetes in this group diagnosed during the study was probably 4-7 years earlier (18).

CONCLUSIONS — The prevalence rate of diabetes in the Mexican-Americans aged [greater than or equal to]40 years enrolled in Proyecto VER was high (estimated to be 22%). The rate of diabetes is similar to that reported by other studies in Mexican populations. In the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination survey, Flegal et al. reported a 23.9% prevalence rate of diabetes in Mexican-Americans aged 45-74 years, compared with 12% in non-Hispanic whites of the same age (2). In the San Antonio Heart Study, an estimated threefold difference in prevalence of type 2 diabetes in individuals aged [greater than or equal to]25 years was found between Mexican-Americans and non-Hispanic whites (8,19). Our findings that 15% were newly diagnosed by the project is identical to the 15% reported by Haffner et al. in their Hispanic population (9).

The duration-specific prevalence rates of DR we report herein for Hispanic individuals with diabetes were not different from data from the Wisconsin non-Hispanic white population (Table 5). These data are also consistent with reported findings from the San Antonio Heart Study Group (9) (Table 5). Although Haffner et al. reported higher rates in Hispanics than in whites (20), we are not able to replicate that finding. In part, the difference may be due to the inclusion of a BMI criterion by Haffner et al. for individuals with diabetes using insulin to be classified as having type 2 diabetes; this criterion was not used either in the WESDR data we presented nor in our current study. In addition, the other studies report data from the 1980s, whereas our study was conducted in 1997-1999; secular trends in prevalence rates of DR cannot be excluded, although our DR rates are similar to those of Haffner et al. in their 1979-1982 study (9).

Both our rates of DR and those of Haffner et al. are higher than those reported for the Mexican-Americans in the San Luis Valley diabetes study in Colorado (10). The rates in our study and those of the studies in Colorado, Texas, and Wisconsin all report higher rates than those reported from the NHANES. This discrepancy might be explained because the NHANES data are based on a single nonstereoscopic photograph taken through a nondilated pupil of a single eye. The likelihood of underascertainment of DR is higher using such an approach (21).

The prevalence of diabetes (and therefore the prevalence of DR) is sensitive to the definition of diabetes used in these studies. We did not use oral glucose tolerance testing or fasting plasma glucose concentration but instead relied on determination of [HbA.sub.1c]. Our cutoff of 7% or higher has been shown to have maximum sensitivity and specificity compared with results of oral glucose tolerance tests, and it identifies individuals in need of pharmacologic intervention [16]. Reported prevalences using this method are only slightly lower than with other methods [17], so our estimate of the prevalence of diabetes may be an underestimation. Others have suggested that elevated [HbA.sub.1c] [greater than]6.5% but [less than]7.0% may also represent elevated glucose levels requiring intervention by diet and/or exercise [16]. We show our data separately for that group because there are few and no consistent age-related increases are shown. If we included that group in the definition of diabetes, our overall prevalence estimates would increase from 22 to 24%; both values are within the range reported by others for Hispanics in this age-group. Therefore, it is unlikely that our definition of diabetes is skewing our prevalence rates of DR either too high or too low.

We based the definition of DR on stereo fundus photographs of fields 1, 2, and 4 rather than photographs of all seven fields. This compromise was necessary to ensure a high response rate to our population-based study (in which photographs were obtained for all participants) while maintaining reasonable sensitivity for detecting DR. This choice may have resulted in some underascertainment of DR, with resulting lower prevalence estimates. However, the pattern of the association of DR we observed with duration of diabetes and level of [HbA.sub.1c] is consistent with previous studies. In the San Antonio study, photographs of all seven fields were obtained of each eye in each subject with diabetes. Our duration-adjusted rates of DR matched the rates in this study most closely, even accounting for modest underascertainment of early noncentral lesions. In the San Luis Valley study, photographs of three fields were obtained through dilated pupils in all subjects with diabetes (similar to our protocol); however, our duration-adjusted rates were significantly higher. There is no good explanation at present for the lower rates in the San Luis Valley Study.

The rate of very early DR-like changes in subjects without diabetes or questionable diabetes was higher (15.5%) than has been reported in non-Hispanic white populations (5-10%) (22-24). The data in our population did not support a relationship between blood pressure or hypertension and signs of DR in those without diabetes. This is in contrast to the findings in the Caucasian populations of Wisconsin and Blue Mountain, Australia, in which an association was found [22,24]. Photographs from all studies were read by the Wisconsin Reading Center. The Blue Mountain Study used a single measure of blood pressure, which could have misclassified the level of blood pressure, but such misclassification would have served to weaken any positive association. We followed a strict protocol for blood pressure ascertainment, in which three readings were obtained, and the average of the second and third values was used; this protocol is similar to that used in other studies of Mexican-Americans [25]. If anything, our readings would have produced lower estimates of people with elevated blood pressure compared with some other studies. Thus, it seems unlikely that differences in ascertainment of blood pressure explain the lack of association observed. We did observe a nonsignificant trend of increasing prevalence rate of early retinopathy with increasing blood pressure, but the number of individuals in our subsample without diabetes may have been too small to detect a significant difference.

In summary, our study in a large population of Mexican-Americans confirms the high rate of diabetes and DR in this community. The finding that 15% of the cases of diabetes in this community were unknown before the survey and that, within this group, 23% of subjects had any retinopathy and 9% had moderate to severe retinopathy speaks to the special efforts that may be required to perform diabetes identification and control in this Hispanic population.

Acknowledgments–This study was supported by a grant from the National Eye Institute (UIO-EY11283).

We thank Dr. Richard Royall, Dr. Dan Finkelstein, Stacy M. Meuer, Scot E. Moss, and Dr. Michael Steffes for their advice and input and the team of Proyecto VER for their skill and support.

S.K.W. is a Research to Prevent Blindness Senior Scientific Investigator.

From the (1.) Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; the (2.) Department of Ophthalmology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; and the (3.) Department of Ophthalmology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Sheila K. West, PhD, Wilmer Eye Institute, Rm. 129, Johns Hopkins University, 600 North Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21287. E-mail: swest@dcpom.med.jhu.edu.

Received for publication 13 December 2000 and accepted in revised form 3 April 2001.

Abbreviations: DR, diabetic retinopathy; NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; WESDR, Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Systme International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

References

(1.) Novello AC, Wise PH, Kleinman DV: Hispanic health: time for data, time for action. JAMA 265:253-255, 1991

(2.) Flegal KM, Ezzati TM, Harris MI, Haynes SG, Juarez RZ, Knowler WC, Perez-Stable EJ, Stem MP: Prevalence of diabetes in Mexican Americans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans for the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1982-1984. Diabetes Care 14 (Suppl. 3):628-638, 1991

(3.) Stern MP, Rosenthal M, Haffner SM, Hazuda HP, Franco LJ: Sex differences in the effects of sociocultural status on diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican Americans: the San Antonio Heart Study. Am J Epidemiol 120:834-851, 1984

(4.) Hamman RF, Marshall JA, Baxter J, Kahn LR, Mayer EJ, Orleans M, Murphy JR, Lezotte DC: The San Luis Valley Diabetes Study methods and prevalence of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM): a biethnic Colorado population. Am J Epidemiol 129:295-311, 1989

(5.) King H, Rewers M, WHO Ad Hoc Diabetes Reporting Group: Global Estimates for prevalence of diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance in adults. Diabetes Care 10:157-177, 1993

(6.) Stern M, Mitchell B. Diabetes in America. Washington, DC, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1995, p. 631-659 (NIH publ. no. 95-1468)

(7.) Stern MP, Gonzalez C, Mitchell BD, Villalpando E, Haffner SM, Hazuda HP: Genetic and environmental determinants of type II diabetes in Mexico City and San Antonio. Diabetes 41:484-492, 1992

(8.) Haffner SM, Rosenthal M, Hazuda HP, Stern MP, Franco LJ: Evaluation of three potential screening tests for diabetes mellitus in a biethnic population. Diabetes Care 7:347-353, 1984

(9.) Haffner SM, Fong D, Stern MP, Pugh JA, Hazuda HP, Patterson JK, van Heuven WAJ, Klein R: Diabetic retinopathy in Mexican Americans and Non-Hispanic Whites. Diabetes 37:878-884, 1988

(10.) Hamman RF, Mayer EJ, Moo-Young GA, Hildebrandt W, Marshall JA, Baxter J: Prevalence and risk factors of diabetic retinopathy in non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics with NIDDM: San Luis Valley Diabetes Study. Diabetes 38:231-237, 1989

(11.) Harris MI, Klein R, Cowie CC, Rowland M, Byrd-Holt DD: Is the risk of diabetic retinopathy greater in non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic whites with type II diabetes? Diabetes Care 21:1230-1235, 1998

(12.) The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group: Feasibility of centralized measurements of glycated hemoglobin in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial: a multicenter study. Clin Chem 33:2267-2271, 1987

(13.) Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group: Report 7: a modification of the Airlie House classification of diabetic retinopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 21: 210-226, 1981

(14.) Klein R, Klein BE, Magli YL, Brothers RJ, Meuer SM, Moss SE, Davis MD: An alternative method of grading diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology 93:1183-1187, 1986

(15.) The 1998 report of the Joint National Committee on Detection. Education, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med 148:1023-1038, 1988

(16.) Peters AL, Davidson MB, Schriger DL, Hasselblad V: A clinical approach for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus: an analysis using glycosylated hemoglobin levels: Meta-analysis Research Group on the Diagnosis of Diabetes Using Glycated Hemoglobin. JAMA 276:1246-1252, 1996

(17.) McCance DR, Hanson RL, Charles MA, Jacobsson LT, Pettitt DJ, Bennett PH, Knowler WC: Comparison of tests for glycated haemoglobin and fasting and two hour plasma glucose concentrations as diagnostic methods for diabetes. BMJ 308:1323-1328, 1994

(18.) Harris MI, Klein R, Welborn TA, Knuiman MW: Onset of NIDDM occurs at least 4-7 years before clinical diagnosis. Diabetes Care 15:815-819, 1992

(19.) Stern MP, Gaskill SP, Hazuda HP, Gardner LI, Haffner SM: Does obesity explain the excess prevalence of diabetes among Mexican Americans? Diabetologia 24:272-277, 1983

(20.) Haffner SM, Mitchell BD, Moss SE, Stern MP, Hazuda HP, Patterson J, Van Heuven WA, Klein R: Is there an ethnic difference in the effect of risk factors for diabetic retinopathy? Ann Epidemiol 3:2-8, 1993

(21.) Klein R, Klein BEK, Neider MW, Hubbard LD, Meuer SM, Brothers RJ: Diabetic retinopathy as detected using ophthalmoscopy, a non-mydriatic camera, and a standard fundus camera. Ophthalmology 92:485-491, 1985

(22.) Yu T, Mitchel P, Berry G, Li W, Wang JJ: Retinopathy in older people without diabetes and its relationship to hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol 116:83-89, 1998

(23.) Stolk RP, VingerlingJR, de Jong PT, Dielemans I, Hofman A, Lamberts SW, Pols HA, Grobbee DE: Retinopathy, blood glucose, and insulin in an elderly population: the Rotterdam study. Diabetes 44:11-15, 1995

(24.) Klein R: Retinopathy in a population-based study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 90:561-594, 1992

(25.) Franco LJ, Stern MP, Rosenthal M, Haffner SM, Hazuda HP, Comeaux PJ: Prevalence, detection, and control of hypertension in a biethnic community: the San Antonio Heart Study. Am J Epidemiol 121:684-696, 1985

Table 1–Comparison of selected characteristics

in nonparticipants and participants

Nonparticipant: no Nonparticipant:

questionnaire or questionnaire only, no

Characteristics clinic exam ++ clinic examination *

Age (years)

40-49 180 (31) 385 (41)

50-59 166 (29) 225 (24)

60-69 105 (18) 165 (18)

70+ 125 (22) 163 (18)

Sex

Male 767 (52) 954 (42)

Self report of diabetes 266 (11) 932 (17)

(age-adjusted)

Participant:

questionnaire and

Characteristics clinic exam +

Age (years)

40-49 1594 (33)

50-59 1362 (29)

60-69 984 (21)

70+ 833 (18)

Sex

Male 4774 (39)

Self report of diabetes 4757 (19)

(age-adjusted)

Data are n (%).

(*)A total of 17 people in this group did not report age, and one did

not report sex;

(+)17 people did not know whether they had received a diagnosis of

diabetes;

(++)of nonrespondents, 354 refused to answer questions regarding age,

sex was not reported for 163, and 226 of 229 people responding to the

short questionnaire answered the self-report of diabetes (although 69

did not report age, which would have enabled age adjustment).

Table 2–Prevalence rate (per 100) of subjects with

diabetes and questionable diabetes by age and sex

Age-groups (years)

40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

Men

n 605 528 394 261 56

Diabetes 12.2 19.7 29.9 33.7 19.6

Questionable diabetes 1.0 1.3 3.3 2.7 5.4

Women

n 936 830 588 373 140

Diabetes 11.8 23.2 29.9 34.6 25.0

Questionable diabetes 1.1 2.0 3.2 2.4 4.3

Population

n 1,541 1,358 982 634 196

Diabetes 11.9 21.9 29.9 34.2 23.5

Questionable diabetes 1.1 1.8 3.3 2.5 4.6

Data are % unless otherwise indicated.

Table 3–Prevalence rate (per 100) of retinopathy and macular edema,

based on fundus photographs, by status of diabets

Diabetes status

DR signs * Absent (subsample)

None + 82.5

Early changes ++ 15.5

Moderate to severe, nonproliferative ss 2.0

Proliferative II 0

Macular Edema

Not clinically significant 0.5

Clinically significant 0

n 200

DR signs * Questionable Definitive

None + 79.0 52.0

Early changes ++ 16.8 16.5

Moderate to severe, nonproliferative ss 4.2 25.3

Proliferative II 0 6.3

Macular Edema

Not clinically significant 0 2.3

Clinically significant 1.0 5.1

n 95 918

(*)Diabetic retinopathy level could not be graded for 20 people;

(+)WESDR grading system grades 10-13 (see text for further

description);

(++)WESDR grading system grades 14-20;

(ss)WESDR grading system grades 31-51;

(II)WESDR grading system grades 60+.

Table 4–Prevalence rate of very early retinopathy changes * by level

of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the 5% sample of people

without diabetes

Percentage of

Blood pressure n retinopathy

Systolic blood pressure +

[less than]140 159 15.1

140-160 28 14.3

[greater than]160 9 33.3

Diastolic blood pressure +

[less than]90 172 15.1

90-100 16 18.8

[greater than]100 8 25.0

Total 196 15.8

Data are n and %.

(*)Grades 14-20;

(+)age- and sex-adjusted differences not significant (P = 0.21).

Table 5–Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy * among people with type

2 diabetes, by duration of diabetes

Duration of diabetes

(as reported)

Newly

Study site diagnosed

Proyecto VER Mexican-Americans (n = 907)

Any DR 24

Moderate to severe DR 9

San Luis Valley Mexican-Americans (n = 187)

Any DR — +

Moderate to severe DR —

San Antonio Mexican-Americans (n = 257)

Any DR 16

Moderate to severe DR 4

NHANES III Mexican-Americans

Any DR —

Moderate to severe DR —

WESDR Caucasians (n = 1,343)

Any DR —

Moderate to severe DR —

Study site [less than]5 years

Proyecto VER Mexican-Americans (n = 907)

Any DR 31

Moderate to severe DR 14

San Luis Valley Mexican-Americans (n = 187)

Any DR 20

Moderate to severe DR —

San Antonio Mexican-Americans (n = 257)

Any DR 35

Moderate to severe DR —

NHANES III Mexican-Americans

Any DR 14

Moderate to severe DR —

WESDR Caucasians (n = 1,343)

Any DR 32

Moderate to severe DR 12

5-14.9

Study site 5-9 years years

Proyecto VER Mexican-Americans (n = 907)

Any DR 47 60

Moderate to severe DR 27 40

San Luis Valley Mexican-Americans (n = 187)

Any DR — 49

Moderate to severe DR — —

San Antonio Mexican-Americans (n = 257)

Any DR 46 —

Moderate to severe DR — —

NHANES III Mexican-Americans

Any DR — 41

Moderate to severe DR — —

WESDR Caucasians (n = 1,343)

Any DR 45 53

Moderate to severe DR 27 33

[greater than or

Study site equal to]15 years

Proyecto VER Mexican-Americans (n = 907)

Any DR 79

Moderate to severe DR 64

San Luis Valley Mexican-Americans (n = 187)

Any DR 60

Moderate to severe DR —

San Antonio Mexican-Americans (n = 257)

Any DR 86

Moderate to severe DR —

NHANES III Mexican-Americans

Any DR 54

Moderate to severe DR —

WESDR Caucasians (n = 1,343)

Any DR 79

Moderate to severe DR 64

[less than]10

Study site years

Proyecto VER Mexican-Americans (n = 907)

Any DR 37

Moderate to severe DR 18

San Luis Valley Mexican-Americans (n = 187)

Any DR —

Moderate to severe DR —

San Antonio Mexican-Americans (n = 257)

Any DR 39

Moderate to severe DR 16

NHANES III Mexican-Americans

Any DR —

Moderate to severe DR —

WESDR Caucasians (n = 1,343)

Any DR 39

Moderate to severe DR 19

[greater than or equal

Study site to]10 years

Proyecto VER Mexican-Americans (n = 907)

Any DR 77

Moderate to severe DR 60

San Luis Valley Mexican-Americans (n = 187)

Any DR —

Moderate to severe DR —

San Antonio Mexican-Americans (n = 257)

Any DR 85

Moderate to severe DR 66

NHANES III Mexican-Americans

Any DR —

Moderate to severe DR —

WESDR Caucasians (n = 1,343)

Any DR 76

Moderate to severe DR 59

Data are n.

(*)Any DR is grade 14 and higher, and moderate to severe is grade 31

and higher;

(+)data were not reported for this duration or level of severity.

[Graph omitted]

[Graph omitted]

COPYRIGHT 2001 American Diabetes Association

COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group