BioMed Research International
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 3801570, 14 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3801570

Review Article

Ocular Complications of Diabetes and Therapeutic Approaches

Victoria J. Vieira-Potter,¹ Dimitrios Karamichos,2,3 and Darren J. Lee3,4

¹Department of Nutrition & Exercise Physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
²Department of Cell Biology, Dean McGee Eye Research Institute, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA
³Department of Ophthalmology, Dean McGee Eye Research Institute, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA
⁴Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Dean McGee Eye Research Institute, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA

Received 3 February 2016; Accepted 2 March 2016

Academic Editor: Ciro Costagliola

Copyright © 2016 Victoria J. Vieira-Potter et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disease defined by elevated blood glucose (BG). DM is a global epidemic and the prevalence is anticipated to continue to increase. The ocular complications of DM negatively impact the quality of life and carry an extremely high economic burden. While systemic control of BG can slow the ocular complications they cannot stop them, especially if clinical symptoms are already present. With the advances in biodegradable polymers, implantable ocular devices can slowly release medication to stop, and in some cases reverse, diabetic complications in the eye. In this review we discuss the ocular complications associated with DM, the treatments available with a focus on localized treatments, and what promising treatments are on the horizon.

1. Introduction

We are experiencing a worldwide increase in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) (i.e., diabetes), a group of metabolic diseases characterized by chronically elevated blood glucose levels. DM is further classified as type 1 (T1DM), which results from pancreatic beta cell failure such that insufficient insulin is produced to effectively clear blood glucose; type 2 (T2DM), which is defined by a state of insulin resistance whereby target cells fail to effectively respond to the hormone, insulin; and gestational DM, which occurs when pregnant women develop insulin resistance during pregnancy. In 2013, an estimated 382 million people were diagnosed with diabetes with T2DM accounting for 90% of the cases [1].

The public health burden of DM is largely attributed to the fact that hyperglycemia increases the likelihood of both macrovascular and microvascular complications; indeed, it is these degenerative complications that result in the increase in morbidity and mortality associated with all forms of DM [2]. When not properly managed, long-term complications of this group of diseases can be severe and include heart disease, stroke, and kidney failure. Importantly, diabetes also profoundly impacts the ocular tissue, with damage to this organ occurring even at the early stages of the disease. While the most prominent manifestation of impaired macrovascular function in DM is accelerated atherosclerosis, microvascular dysfunction leads to nephropathy and retinopathy [2]. Among the microvascular complications of diabetes, diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common and is the leading cause of blindness among working-age adults in Westernized societies [3]. Mechanistically, the changes in the microvasculature result in increased vascular permeability and ischemia [4]. The most profound effects of these alterations are seen in the cornea and retina of the eye.

The cause of T1DM is uncertain and it is not preventable, while T2DM is almost always preventable via behavioral approaches such as diet, exercise, and weight control [1]. Even when well controlled, diabetes has a profound adverse effect on the ocular tissues, which parallels the severity of the disease and the stage at which it was diagnosed. When DR becomes chronic, corneal impairments are almost inevitable. Once the eye has been exposed to hyperglycemia long-term, the basement membrane has accumulated enough toxic end products to lead to cell death, opacity, and eventually vision impairment [5–9], which is irreversible. Although the most common, DR is not the only ocular complication of diabetes; others include corneal dysfunction, cataract, glaucoma, neuropathy, ischemic optic neuropathy, and diabetic macular edema (DME) [1, 10]. Several of these are candidate conditions for therapeutic approaches utilizing tissue engineering.

2. Ocular Complications Associated with Diabetes

2.1. Diabetic Retinopathy (DR)

DR is a progressive blinding disease that affects 4.2 million people worldwide, making it a leading cause of blindness; and, this number is expected to continue to increase [10–13]. DR can be divided into two types, nonproliferative DR (NPDR) and proliferative DR (PDR). NPDR can be further divided into three stages before progressing to PDR (Table 1). An important difference between NPDR and PDR is that vision is not compromised with NDPR, whereas PDR is vision threatening. While NPDR almost always progresses to PDR, the progression can be delayed with tight blood glucose control [14].

Table 1: Progressive stages of diabetic retinopathy and the clinical signs.

Stages of diabetic retinopathy
Clinical signs

Mild NPDR
Microaneurysms

Moderate NPDR
Intraretinal hemorrhages, hard exudates, cotton wool spots, and venous beading less than required for severe NPDR

Severe NPDR
Extensive intraretinal hemorrhages in each of 4 quadrants, venous beading in more than 2 quadrants, and one intraretinal microvascular abnormality

PDR
Neovascularization, vitreous/preretinal hemorrhage

NPDR: nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. PDR: proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

The etiology of DR is complex and not completely understood. However, the mechanisms likely involve vascular, neuronal, and immunological systems [3]. The visual cycle puts a high metabolic demand on the retina, which has two sources of vascular supply. Retinal arteriole vessels supply 2/3 of the inner retina, while the choroid supplies the retinal pigmented epithelial cells and the outer 1/3 of the retina [15]. One of the earliest changes that occur in DR is a reduction in retinal perfusion. These microvascular changes are not always apparent to the patient but are visible on a fundus examination. The reduced blood supply triggers a series of adverse metabolic reactions that ultimately result in endothelial cell degeneration of the retina. The result is retinal ischemia, increased compensatory angiogenesis, tissue remodeling, and inflammation characterized by increased expression of VEGF, IL-6, IL-1β, and TNF-α [3]. Retinal vessels are particularly susceptible to the microvascular changes that are associated with hyperglycemia [12, 13]. Mechanistically, there are numerous biochemical pathways that link hyperglycemia to the reduced vascularization that is intrinsic to the pathology of DR. Some of these include polyol accumulation, oxidative stress, increased expression of angiogenic factors, and activation of protein kinase C [3, 16, 17]. Moreover, hyperglycemic conditions may directly impair retinal mitochondria resulting in increased ROS, inflammation, and DNA damage [18]. Together, microvascular changes, reduced perfusion, thickening of the basement membrane, and systemic abnormalities, such as hypertension, converge to cause retinal pericyte loss, ultimately leading to neovascularization [19, 20]. Once this pathological cycle begins, controlling blood glucose has little or no effect on the ocular diabetic complications. That is largely due to a cascade of inflammatory and angiogenic factors that no longer respond to well controlled blood glucose levels. Therefore, DR likely will eventually require implant therapy.

2.2. NPDR

The first stage of NPDR is mild NPDR in which microvascular changes manifest as microaneurysms that are visible on the retina. NPDR is classified as moderate when intraretinal hemorrhages, hard exudates, cotton wool spots, and venous beading in two or less quadrants are visible on the retina. The intraretinal hemorrhages usually clear up in two to three weeks and so do not interfere with vision long-term. Severe NPDR occurs as the duration of disease continues, the intraretinal hemorrhages increase to include all four quadrants, venous beading increases to include more than two quadrants, and/or one intraretinal microvascular abnormality is visible.

2.3. PDR

The microvascular changes result in a constriction of the blood vessels that nourish the retina [21]. In response to the reduction of retinal perfusion and retinal hemorrhage, abnormal growth of new retina blood vessels occurs. These vessels are problematic because red blood cells absorb light to obscure vision. This neovascularization marks a critical distinction between NPDR and PDR. These vessels can grow into the vitreous and if left untreated can result in retinal tearing and detachment [22]. Additionally, the walls of these abnormal vessels are susceptible to breakage, resulting in vitreous hemorrhage that causes two additional problems. First, the blood from vitreous hemorrhage impairs vision. Retinal vessels have a blood retinal barrier that prevents plasma, growth factors, and other inflammatory factors from entering the immunologically quiescent eye. Therefore, a second consequence of vitreous hemorrhage is that it triggers additional neovascularization and inflammation that perpetuates PDR [4].

2.4. Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)

The macula is located in the center of the retina and contains the highest concentration of cones. This gives the ability to see color and details. Because of the central location of the macula, it also means the macula is responsible for central vision. When the fragile retinal vessels burst, the fluid accumulates causing a thickening of the retina. This results in distorted or blurry vision [23]. It has been observed that the incidence of DME is higher among type 2 compared to type 1 diabetics, but it is not well understood why this is the case [24].

2.5. Neuropathy

Visual information is transmitted to the brain as electrochemical signals through retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). The RGCs bundle together to form the optic nerve that exits the back of the eye and transfers the visual information to the brain. Diabetes causes stress to the retina that triggers apoptosis of RGCs [25, 26]. These stresses include ischemia, oxidative stress, a reduction of trophic factors, excitotoxicity, increased intraocular pressure, neuroinflammation, and aldose reductase inhibition. Unfortunately, RGC death can occur even during the early stages of diabetes [27–29].

2.6. Ischemic Optic Neuropathy

The reduced retinal perfusion and microaneurysms can reduce the oxygen supply to the optic nerve. If the optic nerve is deprived of oxygen for too long it will undergo apoptosis and cause permanent vision loss. The ischemia and neuropathy trigger a cascade that results in the release of additional apoptotic factors that can affect other areas of the retina. In addition the ischemia induces hypoxia inducible factors that promote angiogenesis and inflammation [30]. Therefore, the optic neuropathy that results from ischemia is just one result of the low oxygen conditions.

2.7. Glaucoma

The World Health Organization has classified glaucoma as priority eye disease [31]. When aqueous humor does not properly drain through the trabecular meshwork and Schlemm’s canal, it can lead to excess pressure inside the eye. The increase in pressure can damage nerves and the blood vessels, causing changes in vision, leading to glaucoma. It is projected to affect 79.6 million people by 2020 [32]. However, the studies documenting the magnitude of glaucoma among diabetics worldwide are limited. Its prevalence among diabetics ranges from 4.96% to 14.6% [33, 34]. Two main categories exist: “open-angle” and “closed-angle” glaucoma. Open-angle glaucoma is painless, chronic, and generally asymptomatic until it progresses significantly. Closed-angle glaucoma, on the other hand, is known for sudden eye pain, redness, nausea, and intraocular pressure spikes. While open-angle glaucoma can be treated with medications, closed-angle glaucoma generally requires medical emergency care. People with diabetes tend to get open-angle glaucoma more than closed-angle glaucoma. However, there is no study showing an increased rate of primary open-angle glaucoma in diabetics. Four of the major studies in the last twenty years cannot agree largely due to inconsistent definitions of both DM and glaucoma and study exclusions or sampling bias. The Beaver Dam Eye Study (1994) showed diabetics (mostly T2DM) with glaucoma incidence of 4.2% versus 2.0% in participants without DM. When people treated for glaucoma were included, rates were 7.8% in diabetics compared with 3.9% in those without diabetes. A year later, 1995, the Baltimore Eye Survey concluded that diabetics are no more likely to have open-angle glaucoma than nondiabetics. DM was defined in this study based on history only. The authors suggest that previous reported increase in prevalence is due to more screening in diabetics. The Rotterdam Study (1996) reported that newly diagnosed diabetics had increased prevalence of open-angle glaucoma [35, 36]. In 2002, the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study showed protective effect of DM on open-angle glaucoma. That study excluded patients with DM. People with diabetes are also more likely to get an uncommon type of glaucoma, called neovascular glaucoma. In this form of glaucoma, new blood vessels grow on the iris. These blood vessels block the normal flow of fluid out of the eye, raising the eye pressure. This particular type is very difficult to treat. One option is laser surgery to reduce the vessels. Surgeons are also looking into the use of implants to help drain the fluid. Injectable anti-VEGF medications are also widely used [37].

2.8. Corneal Edema

Common corneal dysfunctions associated with diabetes result in impaired vision or blindness due to decreased wound healing, corneal edema, and an altered epithelial basement membrane. In fact, of the 382 million people diagnosed with DM worldwide, approximately 70% suffer from some kind of corneal complications collectively and commonly known as diabetic keratopathy [5, 38–41]. Corneal repair is often difficult in diabetic patients. The diabetic cornea suffers from cellular dysfunction and dysfunctional wound healing/repair mechanisms [42–45]. There have been an extensive range of studies looking at specific dysfunctions of the cornea. Schultz and coauthors [40] found corneal epithelial lesions in more than 65% of the population tested. Two years later [46], the same group reported diminished corneal peripheral sensation suggesting some kind of neuropathy. This has now been confirmed by multiple studies [40, 47–53] and is widely accepted that these patients suffer from reduced corneal sensitivity and generalized neuropathy. Diabetic patients have also been found to have abnormal adhesions of the corneal epithelium to the underlying basement membrane [6] leading to prolonged and recurrent defects. To make things even more complicated, Gekka et al. [54] and Göbbels et al. [55] showed improper function and weakening of the epithelial barrier in diabetic patients leading to higher risks of corneal infections and stromal fibrosis. Corneal thickness increase has also been reported [56–59] and linked to diabetes as well as endothelial dysfunction [58]. Clearly, there are a lot of defects in the human diabetic cornea that may lead to severe vision impairments.

2.9. Corneal Nerve Alterations

Diabetes-related microvascular complications include, but are not limited to, nephropathy, end-stage renal failure, peripheral neuropathy, and blindness [68]. The prevalence of these complications is highly dependent upon disease duration and age. Recent technological advancements have enhanced our ability to monitor and diagnose ocular diabetes defects. In vivo confocal microscopy has played a critical role in defining the role of corneal subbasal nerves in diabetes [69–72]. Rosenberg and coauthors showed a correlation between corneal subbasal nerve density and corneal sensation in a group of 23 patients diagnosed with type I diabetes [53]. Edwards et al. [73] recently used an automated imaging technique to compare montages of the subbasal nerve plexus between healthy and diabetic patients. They mapped the entire human corneal nerve architecture and demonstrated that epithelial nerve density of the central cornea is higher than that in the periphery [73]. Intriguingly, the reduced subbasal nerve density in the cornea has been associated with diabetic retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy [74–77]. Reduced corneal sensitivity resulting from defected subbasal nerves has also been noted as a potential biomarker for autonomic cardiac neuropathy (a diabetic complication) [65]. Overall, diabetes can severely affect the ocular surface as well as other ocular structures such as the retina. Table 2 lists the major clinical defects observed in patients with early, mild, and end-stage diabetes with regard to the cornea, retina, and nerves.

Table 2: Clinical manifestations of diabetes mellitus in ocular tissues.

Disease stage
Ocular tissue

Cornea
Nerve
Retina

Early/prediabetes
Ocular lens -crystallin formation [60]; increased central corneal thickness [61]
Decreased corneal nerve fiber length [62]
Microaneurysms; exudate; tortuosity of vessels; edema

Midpoint
Reduced corneal subbasal nerve density; increased corneal sensitivity; corneal erosion syndrome [63]
Reduced subfoveal choroidal thickness [64]; reduced corneal nerve density [65]
Macula edema; hemorrhage; retinal detachment

Late-stage diabetes
Reduced tear meniscus parameters [66]; lower nerve fiber and branch length [67]
Optic neuropathy
Severe hemorrhage; retinal tearing/detachment; blindness

2.10. Cataract

Cataract is one of the main causes of vision impairment in diabetics. Although cataract surgery is relatively safe and has high rates of success among healthy individuals, that is not the case with diabetics. Klein and coauthors reported a large proportion (59–98%) of people with T2DM aged 30 to 75 will develop cataract [78, 79]. Other studies have reported greater foveal thickness and higher incidence of macular edema following cataract surgery in diabetic compared to nondiabetic patients [80–82]. Posterior capsular opacification (PCO) is a common finding following cataract surgery. When the lens is removed during cataract surgery, the capsule that the lens sits in remains and in some cases it can obstruct vision by opacification. A higher incidence of PCO was reported in diabetics [83]. Zaczek and Zetterstrom, however, reported the exact opposite, where PCO rates were reduced in diabetics. Another area of conflicting reports is whether or not cataract surgery accelerates DR. There is evidence for both sides of that argument as reviewed by Skarbez et al. [38]. Some, but not all, report that DR is progressed following extracapsular cataract extraction [83–86]. As with DR, there are concerns that cataract surgery in diabetics may exacerbate the progression of macular edema. However, the studies available suggest that this is only of minor concern with the vast majority showing no evidence of macular edema in these patients [86].

3. Risks Involved in Common Ocular Procedures among Diabetics

3.1. Corneal Transplants

In the United States alone, more than 40,000 corneal transplants are performed annually [87]. Over the years, corneal transplantation success has risen mainly due to technological advances. However, despite the improved success rates, several problems can occur including rejection of the new cornea. About 20% of corneal transplants are rejected [87, 88]. There are several types or corneal transplants including full thickness, lamellar, Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial (DSAEK), Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), and anterior lamellar corneal transplants [89–92]. Depending on the location of the scars and the degree of corneal damage, the surgeon can make a decision on which of the above is more appropriate. In diabetes, there are several problems that occur and may lead to corneal transplant. Some of the most common corneal defects seen in diabetics are recurrent corneal erosions, persistent epithelial defects, and corneal endothelial damage. The long exposure to abnormal glucose levels can lead to blindness and corneal transplantation is, most of the time, the first treatment option. In diabetics, success of corneal transplantation is lower when compared to other diseases such as keratoconus. One of the main reasons for this is that diabetics have a slower wound healing process causing grafts to fail quicker. In addition, diabetics are more prone to corneal infections such as fungal keratitis which can also cause graft rejection [93].

3.2. LASIK/PRK

Laser In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) is a common corrective vision procedure for millions of people annually. Given the increased incidence of corneal defects in diabetic patients, several investigators are looking into the risks of LASIK performed in these patients. One of the first reports described poor refractive results and epithelial complications in 47% of diabetic patients [94]. Others have reported epithelial ingrowth following LASIK [95–98]. Another study by Ghanbari and Ahmadieh [99] described extensive neovascularization of the iris and rapid advancement of proliferative DR following LASIK, raising concerns about the link between LASIK and DR. The alternative to LASIK is photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). PRK involves removal of the epithelium which is problematic in diabetics where the epithelium is known to heal slowly. In that respect, LASIK may be preferred since it involves making a flap and applying the laser directly to the stroma; however trauma is still done to the epithelium. Despite the risks, both PRK and LASIK have enabled millions of people to achieve better vision. There are clearly pros and cons for either one of these techniques, but in the end the surgeon and the patients are the ones choosing the best option [100–104].

4. Treatment Options

4.1. Blood Glucose Control

The first line of defense in managing all forms of DM is tight blood glucose control; indeed, hyperglycemia is the main determinant of diabetic microvascular diseases [2]. Thus, pharmacological blood glucose control is often thought to be efficacious in preventing and treating DR. There are six classes of oral glucose-lowering drugs: biguanides (e.g., metformin), sulfonylureas (e.g., glimepiride), meglitinides (e.g., repaglinide), thiazolidinediones (e.g., pioglitazone), dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, and alpha glucosidase inhibitors (e.g., acarbose). When these oral glucose-regulating drugs are insufficient to stabilize blood glucose, insulin therapy is used. Sulfonylureas are the oldest and most widely used drug class. While they are effective glucose-lowering agents, they may cause hypoglycemia and weight gain. Metformin is an insulin-sensitizing drug, so it is only effective prior to beta cell failure. It is also particularly effective at reducing inflammation and endothelial dysfunction associated with T2DM, making it an attractive therapeutic approach for DR.

4.2. Insulin Eye Drops

Some diabetics are required to use insulin injections in order to control blood sugar levels. However, despite the popularity of this method many patients find it difficult to maintain correct sugar levels. One of the alternative methods of delivering insulin that have been studied is insulin eye drops. In animal studies, applying insulin eye drops has been relatively effective [105]. Pillion et al. investigated the efficacy of insulin eye drops in rats at a 2 mg/mL concentration and found that they could not be absorbed when delivered in saline [106]. However, the absorption was massively increased when the authors added various emulsant agents such as saponin, Brij-78, and BL-9. In a more recent study, Liu and colleagues determined the efficacy of insulin eye drops in rabbit eyes using Brij-78 as a delivery agent [107, 108]. Absorption was found optimum at 0.05% insulin and 0.5% Brij-78. Concentrations were extrapolated for future human studies and suggested a therapeutic dose of 1.25% insulin or 1.25 mg insulin/75 kg body weight. Overall, it is easily understood that delivering insulin through the ocular route is much easier and less expensive than injections.

4.3. Blood Sugar Contact Lenses

A more sophisticated and technologically advanced method for measuring and controlling sugar levels was recently developed by Otis and Parviz [109]. They have created contact lenses that can detect and measure blood sugar levels in human tears throughout the day. A thin glucose-sensing chip is sandwiched between two layers of soft contact lens material, with a small pore over the sensor. The eye naturally generates tears over the course of the day to keep the eye lubricated. The tears leak into the pore, reach the sensor, and transmit the reading wirelessly to an external device (e.g., smartphone). Despite the very promising technology, there are major hurdles to overcome before these sensors are commercially available. First, they have to meet the consumers’ criteria of acceptance including convenience, wear schedule, cleaning, and cosmetics. The other major factor, in today’s hi-tech world, is powering the contacts lenses. To date, wireless powering is possible using electromagnetic radiation at high frequency which has significant health effects. Even if we assume that all the above are possible and consumers are ready for such a product, the supplier will have to gain marketing approval and follow the governing regulations which may vary substantially between countries. In the USA, as recently reviewed by Farandos et al., the FDA has three regulatory classes for medical devices. Class I is associated with the lowest risk and is least regulated and Class III the highest risk and most regulated [105]. Overall, the technology is not market-ready yet. Google’s glucose lenses have been recently licensed by Novartis and give an opportunity for further development and commercialization.

4.4. Subconjunctival Glucose Sensors

There is enough evidence that tight glycemic control is mandatory to prevent, or at the very least slow, the progression of chronic complications such as blindness [110]. In 2012, Müller and coauthors developed a long-term implantable glucose sensor which was an upgrade to the in vitro blood glucose test strips and the short-term sensor implants currently available for blood glucose monitoring [111]. The novel long-term blood glucose monitoring system is an ocular mini implant placed under the bulbar conjunctiva of the patient’s eye and a handheld fluorescence photometer reads out the sensor signal from the implant and translates it to a blood glucose reading. The study showed no toxicity. The functional components are dye-labeled Con A and dextran, which are known to be safe at low doses. The system has only been tested for two weeks in vivo. Longer studies are clearly needed. One of the major drawbacks is that the glucose measurements are self-performed and the photometer positioning has to be precise and accurate in order to ensure correct measurements. Müller and coauthors published a long-term study in 2013 where they evaluated the implantable subconjunctival glucose monitoring system (SGMS) for long-term glucose monitoring [112]. SGMS, a modified version of the original implantable device, contains a proprietary hydrophilic biocompatible surface coating in order to minimize fibrosis seen with the original uncoated design. They performed a 1-year clinical study with 47 diabetes patients. While the results were promising, further design modifications are required before a final product can be developed. Two major problems were noted. The first was that the device showed decreased measurement performance, as fibrous tissue was forming around the implant. Second, the two-point calibration system used may not be applicable for a final product where real time glucose displayed values are necessary.

4.5. Management and Treatment Options for Corneal Edema

Corneal edema/scarring management and treatment are currently identical, whether the edema is a result of an injury, trauma, or disease. The options available to patients with associated symptoms have been previously described and reviewed [113–120]. In the following section, we will briefly discuss edema management and clinical treatment options.

Patients with mild corneal edema are normally prescribed hypertonic agents, such as sodium chloride 2% and 5% solution and ointment. These agents create a hypertonic tear film that draws water out of the cornea limiting the buildup of edema.

Bandage contact lenses are also available for temporary relief of corneal pain and discomfort [121, 122]. These contact lenses prevent the cornea from coming into contact with the eyelids which can be painful due to the corneal injury and the damaged epithelium. However, there are several concerns with contact lenses in general. Improper or overnight wear can actually lead to more corneal edema as well as an increased risk of infection. For these reasons, bandage contact lenses are for short-term early treatment, are prescribed with antibiotics, and require close follow-up medical care.

For patients with severe pain, anterior stromal puncture is performed [123]. Normally, a 25-gauge needle is used to deliver multiple superficial punctures just below Bowman’s layer. This technique normally leads to a strengthened bond between the epithelium and Bowman’s layers. Similar results have been achieved using laser phototherapeutic keratectomy.

Ultimately, when the vision decreases significantly by corneal edema the one definitive treatment is corneal transplantation. Corneal transplantation can be performed in several ways depending on the location of the pathology in the host cornea. This topic is extensive and there are multiple reviews that outline techniques, advantages, and disadvantages. While this is beyond the scope of this review, we outline a few of the most important and widely used corneal transplantation techniques below.

Full thickness corneal transplantation or penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) is one of the original and most common techniques where the full thickness tissue is removed and replaced by a donor tissue [124]. PRK’s major advantage is the minimization of tissue interfaces in the visual axes which ensure optical clarity. Disadvantages include postoperative wound leak and intraoperative hemorrhage.

Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) is an alternative to PKP when the host endothelium layer is still functional and the pathology is located within the anterior cornea [125–128]. Briefly, the host epithelium and stroma are removed and replaced by the donor corneal graft consisting of the epithelium, Bowman’s membrane, and the corneal stroma. The major advantage is the retention of the host endothelium and Descemet membrane. On the other hand, one of the major risks is that if the host stromal layer is not removed completely an irregular stroma-to-stroma interface may form with the donor tissue.

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) is the technique commonly used for endothelial dysfunction and disease [129–135]. Briefly, the diseased host corneal endothelium is removed together with Descemet membrane and replaced by the donor endothelium, Descemet membrane, and some posterior stroma. Although DSEAK is a relatively new technique and survival graft survival data is not great, 3-year survival seems to be an accurate estimate. However, major complications with DSAEK can occur including endothelial rejection, primary graft failure, and iatrogenic glaucoma.

4.6. Antisteroidal Implants

Inflammation has a role in the ocular complications associated with diabetes [136]. Moreover, anti-inflammatory treatments have been shown to slow the progression of ocular complications. Because of the location and anatomy of the eye, drug delivery to the retina is difficult. One option is an intravitreal injection. However, because of the need for repeat injections, intraocular implants that deliver corticosteroids have been developed. Intraocular implants can be completely biodegradable or the biodegradable polymer can be encased in another polymer that is nonbiodegradable. Biodegradable implants are not anchored to the sclera, so they can move around and obscure vision. It has been reported that the polymer migrated to the anterior chamber to contact the corneal endothelium [137, 138]. This is problematic because it can erode through the cornea. Nonbiodegradable implants have the benefit that they may be anchored to the sclera to prevent migration. However, some patients may require removal of the implant once the medication has been exhausted [139, 140].

4.7. Ozurdex®

Ozurdex (Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) delivers dexamethasone for up to 4 months and is completely biodegradable [141]. Ozurdex can be delivered with a designer applicator in a clinical setting and an IOP increase is less likely with this implant [142–145]. A ≥ 15 letter gain at 36 months was achieved in 22% of patients in the Macular Edema: Assessment of Implantable Dexamethasone in Diabetes (MEAD) Study, which is significantly greater than 12% observed in the sham injected group [146–148].

4.8. Retisert®

Retisert (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) is a nonbiodegradable implant that delivers fluocinolone acetonide for up to 30 months [141]. Delivery of Retisert involves an outpatient surgical procedure so that the implant can be anchored to the sclera [149]. While Retisert is not FDA approved for the treatment of DME, the effectiveness of Retisert was compared with laser treatment alone [150]. At 6 and 24 months the implant group showed significantly more patients with an improvement in visual acuity compared to the laser group. However, at 36 months there was no significant difference between the two groups [150]. The authors suggest that the lack of significance could be due to a decrease in drug availability. It should also be noted that the number of patients at 36 months is almost half the number at 6 months which would skew the dataset since it is likely the patients with improved vision would be less likely to be included in the 36-month time point.

4.9. Iluvien®

Iluvien (Alimera Science, Alpharetta, GA) delivers fluocinolone acetonide within a nonbiodegradable tube for up to 36 months [141]. The delivery of Iluvien can be accomplished with injection with a 25-gauge needle that can be performed in a clinical setting. In the Fluocinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema (FAME) A and B studies it was found that a ≥ 15 letter gain was significantly greater at 34% compared to 13.4% in the sham group at 36 months [151].

4.10. Antineovascular Treatment

Since neovascularization and inflammation perpetuate one another, neutralization of inflammatory factors can also stop neovascularization and by inhibiting neovascularization the inflammation can be controlled as well. VEGF is a key signaling molecule that stimulates neovascularization. Therefore, another target to treat ocular diabetic disease is VEGF. There are currently four anti-VEGF treatments available and these are most effectively delivered to the retina through repeat intraocular injections.

4.11. Pegaptanib

Pegaptanib (Macugen, Pfizer, New York, NY) was approved for treatment of age-related macular degeneration in December 2004. Pegaptanib is an RNA aptamer that targets the VEFG-165 isoform. In double-masked clinical trials pegaptanib was effective in improving vision and reducing diabetic macular edema compared to laser therapy alone [152, 153]. However, pegaptanib has become eclipsed more recently because of the increased efficacy of the pan-VEGF inhibitors, ranibizumab and bevacizumab [154], discussed below.

4.12. Bevacizumab

Bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) is a humanized murine antibody approved for the treatment of various cancers and binds all VEGF-A isoforms. The use of bevacizumab for ocular disease has been off-label use [155]. Compared with triamcinolone or laser therapy bevacizumab given every 3-4 weeks showed an increase in visual acuity and reduction in diabetic macular edema at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months [155]. Another study did not find a significant difference between the groups after six months, but the frequency was every 12 weeks [156, 157].

4.13. Ranibizumab

Ranibizumab (Lucentis, Genentech, Inc.) is a humanized monoclonal antibody fragment that that we developed for ocular use from bevacizumab, so it binds to all VEGF-A isoforms with higher affinity. It was thought that the smaller antibody fragment would allow for easy diffusion through the vitreous to get to the retina. It is the first FDA-approved medication to treat diabetic macular edema and is approved for wet AMD, macular edema due to branch and central retinal vein occlusions [155]. Ranibizumab was shown to be most effective when injected every 4 weeks [158]. When given monthly, ranibizumab alone or ranibizumab with laser compared with laser alone showed significant visual acuity improvement and decreased macular edema [159]. At 24 months the ranibizumab and ranibizumab with laser groups showed stable vision, but the laser group showed improved vision [160].

4.14. Aflibercept

Aflibercept (Eylea, Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY) is a fusion protein with VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 binding domains bound to the Fc of human IgG1. This allows it to bind all isoforms of VEGF-A, VEGF-B, and placental growth factor with high affinity [161]. Aflibercept is approved for wet AMD and macular edema, and a systemic formulation is approved for colorectal cancer. The efficacy of aflibercept has been tested in randomized groups consisting of laser or aflibercept and showed that aflibercept showed greater improvements and no worsening at 52 weeks when given every 4 weeks or 8 weeks [155].

5. Future Directions

5.1. Delivery of Anti-VEGF as an Intraocular Implant

There are several sustained release intraocular substrates that are in development for the delivery of anti-VEGF neutralization antibodies. The typical polymer matrices used as biodegradable drug delivery systems such as poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), polylactic acid (PLA), polycaprolactone dimethacrylate (PCM), and polyhydroxyethyl methacrylate (poly-HEMA) have been used as substrates to release bevacizumab for several months [162–164]. Yandrapu et al. demonstrated antibody release in rats for several months with PLGA and PLA nanoparticles, because PLGA is porous and it slowly releases the antibody bound to PLA nanoparticles encased in PLGA [163]. PCM and poly-HEMA have also been used as a sustained release substrate for bevacizumab. This has been demonstrated in rabbits to release antibody for up to 4 months [164]. In addition, there are other polymer matrices waiting to be translated into the clinic. Ranibizumab has been loaded onto microparticles by coaxial electrospray for sustained delivery [165]. The intracellular VEGF signaling cascade is also a target for small molecule inhibitors. Other examples of anti-VEGF treatment are silk hydrogels with other VEGF inhibitors such as a novel single-chain antibody fragment [166, 167].

Neurotech, Inc. (Cumberland, RI), is developing an implant, NT-503 ECT, that can be sutured to the sclera to deliver a continuous supply of anti-VEGF antibody. This is achieved with genetically modified retinal pigmented epithelial (RPE) cells to produce the medication. The modified RPE cells are coated on a polyethylene terephthalate yarn encased in a polysulfone membrane. The polysulfone membrane allows for nourishment of the RPE cells through diffusion of nutrients into the device and the antibody readily diffuses out into the vitreous for over two years [168, 169].

5.2. Additional Nonsteroidal Treatment Options

Retinal detachment can be a complication associated with DM. This is due to the ingrowth of retinal vessels into the vitreous that can pull the retina away from the RPE cells as the vitreous moves around. Ocriplasmin (ThromboGenics NV, Iselin, NH) is recombinant human plasmin that digests fibronectin, laminin, and collagen in the vitreous to weaken adhesions at the vitreoretinal surface and release the retinal vessels that have grown into the vitreous. Ocriplasmin has been FDA approved for vitreomacular traction when associated with a macular hole ≤ 400 um [170, 171].

Flt23k intraceptor inhibits VEGF secretion by sequestering it in the endoplasmic reticulum [162]. A Flt23k expression plasmid has been shown to inhibit AMD in primates and murine models [172]. Integrin receptors that are upregulated during ocular neovascularization can be targeted with the RGD peptide motif [173]. By coupling the RGD motif with PLGA nanoparticles and the Flt23k expression plasmid, Luo et al., were able to achieve a targeted gene therapy approach [172].

Another method of inhibiting VEGF expression is through the use of siRNA. It has been demonstrated by Zhang et al. that VEGFR1 siRNA can be effectively delivered with a PEGylated liposome-protamine-hyaluronic acid nanoparticle system to RPE cells. This system was shown to be much more effective at inhibiting a laser induced CNV compared with treatment with naked siRNA [174].

5.3. Systemic Therapies/Glucose Monitoring

Risk factors for DR and perhaps other ocular complications include not only hyperglycemia but also hypertension and dyslipidemia [14]. This highlights the fact that glycemic control, as well as other systemic approaches (e.g., blood pressure lowering therapies and lipid lowering therapies), constitutes an important holistic preventative approach to diabetes-related ocular conditions. As far as systemic approaches, stringent glycemic control remains the cornerstone of prevention. Indeed, stringent systemic control of diabetes likely will prevent the progression of DR from the nonproliferative to the proliferative stage and thus prevent the necessity of end-stage treatments such as laser treatment [175]. Tight glucose control is of paramount importance throughout the time course of diabetes in order to most effectively prevent organ complications. For example, studies have shown that poor glucose control in the early stages of diabetes, even if corrected, still may have lasting effects on prognosis of complications long-term [176]. Moreover, glycemic variability is known to associate with adverse diabetes complications [177] and, in type 1 diabetic patients, high glycemic variability predicts microvascular complications [178]. Accordingly, continuous glucose monitoring devices may be a necessary component of an optimal treatment plan.

Of particular relevance to this review and discussed in more detail above, one of the latest experimental approaches to continuous glucose monitoring involves a state-of-the-art contact lens, which noninvasively monitors blood glucose via continuous sensing of glucose in tear fluid. These contact lens-based sensors would then transmit this information to an external device [179, 180].

5.4. Adipose-Derived Stem Cells

Unfortunately, in most cases, insulin treatment can only delay the onset and progression of DR but will not prevent or cure the condition [181]. The concept of repairing terminally differentiated organs, such as the eye, with cell-based therapy is gaining traction; such therapy for DR is a promising alternative approach. Intravitreal stem cell injections are an example of a cell-based therapy for DR. Adipose stem cells (ASCs) are a novel cell-based therapy and unique in that they have functional and phenotypic overlap with pericytes which line microvessels in adipose [182, 183]. These particular stem cells also produce angiogenic as well as antiapoptotic factors [184], making them particularly attractive for DR. Importantly, at least one rodent study has shown that a single intravitreal injection of ASCs significantly improved diabetic ocular complications [185].

6. Summary

The merging of technologies and explosion of biologics as therapeutics promises to provide additional novel and more effective treatment options as implants or through other delivery methods. Moreover, as the fields of angiogenesis, immunology, and metabolism continue to discover more overlap new pathways will be identified as potential therapeutic targets. Therefore, in the next 5–10 years we anticipate the addition of many new treatments for ocular diabetic complications as exciting discoveries at the bench are translated to the bedside.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

D. M. Nathan, “Diabetes: advances in diagnosis and treatment,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 314, no. 10, pp. 1052–1062, 2015.

V. Usuelli and E. La Rocca, “Novel therapeutic approaches for diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy,” Pharmacological Research, vol. 98, pp. 39–44, 2015.

F. Semeraro, A. Cancarini, R. dell'Omo, S. Rezzola, M. R. Romano, and C. Costagliola, “Diabetic retinopathy: vascular and inflammatory disease,” Journal of Diabetes Research, vol. 2015, Article ID 582060, 16 pages, 2015.

D. Gologorsky, A. Thanos, and D. Vavvas, “Therapeutic interventions against inflammatory and angiogenic mediators in proliferative diabetic retinopathy,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2012, Article ID 629452, 10 pages, 2012.

P. R. Herse, “A review of manifestations of diabetes mellitus in the anterior eye and cornea,” American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 224–230, 1988.

G. N. Foulks, R. A. Thoft, H. D. Perry, and F. I. Tolentino, “Factors related to corneal epithelial complications after closed vitrectomy in diabetics,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 1076–1078, 1979.

H. Chung, F. I. Tolentino, V. N. Cajita, J. Acosta, and M. F. Refojo, “Reevaluation of corneal complications after closed vitrectomy,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 106, no. 7, pp. 916–919, 1988.

J. S. Saini and B. Khandalavla, “Corneal epithelial fragility in diabetes mellitus,” Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 142–146, 1995.

D. L. Hatchell, J. J. Magolan Jr., M. J. Besson, A. I. Goldman, H. J. Pederson, and K. J. Schultz, “Damage to the epithelial basement membrane in the corneas of diabetic rabbits,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 469–471, 1983.

N. Cho, D. Whiting, N. Forouhi et al., IDF Diabetes Atlas, 7th edition, 2015, http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas.

American Diabetes Association, Data from the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2014, http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/.

S. Van Dieren, J. W. J. Beulens, Y. T. Van Der Schouw, D. E. Grobbee, and B. Neal, “The global burden of diabetes and its complications: an emerging pandemic,” European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. S3–S8, 2010.

P. N. Van Buren and R. Toto, “Hypertension in diabetic nephropathy: epidemiology, mechanisms, and management,” Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 28–41, 2011.

R. Simó and C. Hernández, “Advances in the medical treatment of diabetic retinopathy,” Diabetes Care, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1556–1562, 2009.

P. A. Campochiaro, “Molecular pathogenesis of retinal and choroidal vascular diseases,” Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, vol. 49, pp. 67–81, 2015.

A. M. Hendrick, M. V. Gibson, and A. Kulshreshtha, “Diabetic retinopathy,” Primary Care, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 451–464, 2015.

M. Brownlee, “Biochemistry and molecular cell biology of diabetic complications,” Nature, vol. 414, no. 6865, pp. 813–820, 2001.

B. Kumar, A. Kowluru, and R. A. Kowluru, “Lipotoxicity augments glucotoxicity-induced mitochondrial damage in the development of diabetic retinopathy,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2985–2992, 2015.

J. T. Durham and I. M. Herman, “Microvascular modifications in diabetic retinopathy,” Current Diabetes Reports, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 253–264, 2011.

E. Beltramo and M. Porta, “Pericyte loss in diabetic retinopathy: mechanisms and consequences,” Current Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 26, pp. 3218–3225, 2013.

M. Barot, M. R. Gokulgandhi, S. Patel, and A. K. Mitra, “Microvascular complications and diabetic retinopathy: recent advances and future implications,” Future Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 301–314, 2013.

D. S. Fong, L. P. Aiello, F. L. Ferris III, and R. Klein, “Diabetic retinopathy,” Diabetes Care, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 2540–2553, 2004.

R. Simó, E. Carrasco, M. García-Ramírez, and C. Hernández, “Angiogenic and antiangiogenic factors in proliferative diabetic retinopathy,” Current Diabetes Reviews, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 71–98, 2006.

F. Bandello, M. Battaglia Parodi, P. Lanzetta et al., “Diabetic macular edema,” Macular Edema: A Practical Approach, vol. 47, pp. 73–110, 2010.

G. Bikbova, T. Oshitari, T. Baba, and S. Yamamoto, “Neurotrophic factors for retinal ganglion cell neuropathy-with a special reference to diabetic neuropathy in the retina,” Current Diabetes Reviews, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 166–176, 2014.

A. J. Barber, T. W. Gardner, and S. F. Abcouwer, “The significance of vascular and neural apoptosis to the pathology of diabetic retinopathy,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 1156–1163, 2011.

T. Oshitari, S. Yamamoto, N. Hata, and S. Roy, “Mitochondria- and caspase-dependent cell death pathway involved in neuronal degeneration in diabetic retinopathy,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 552–556, 2008.

T. Oshitari, N. Yoshida-Hata, and S. Yamamoto, “Effect of neurotrophic factors on neuronal apoptosis and neurite regeneration in cultured rat retinas exposed to high glucose,” Brain Research, vol. 1346, pp. 43–51, 2010.

T. Oshitari, G. Bikbova, and S. Yamamoto, “Increased expression of phosphorylated c-Jun and phosphorylated c-Jun N-terminal kinase associated with neuronal cell death in diabetic and high glucose exposed rat retinas,” Brain Research Bulletin, vol. 101, pp. 18–25, 2014.

J.-H. Tao, J. Barbi, and F. Pan, “Hypoxia-inducible factors in T lymphocyte differentiation and function. A review in the theme: cellular responses to hypoxia,” American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology, vol. 309, no. 9, pp. C580–C589, 2015.

J. Beynat, A. Charles, M. Soulié, P. Métral, C. Creuzot-Garcher, and A. M. Bron, “Combined glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy screening in Burgundy,” Journal Francais d'Ophtalmologie, vol. 31, no. 6, part 1, pp. 591–596, 2008.

A. V. Mantravadi and N. Vadhar, “Glaucoma,” Primary Care, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 437–449, 2015.

Y. Zheng, T. Y. Wong, C. Y.-L. Cheung et al., “Influence of diabetes and diabetic retinopathy on the performance of heidelberg retina tomography II for diagnosis of glaucoma,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 5519–5524, 2010.

U. Vyas, R. Khandekar, N. Trivedi, T. Desai, and P. Danayak, “Magnitude and determinants of ocular morbidities among persons with diabetes in a project in ahmedabad, India,” Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 601–607, 2009.

S. de Voogd, M. K. Ikram, R. C. W. Wolfs et al., “Is diabetes mellitus a risk factor for open-angle glaucoma?. The Rotterdam study,” Ophthalmology, vol. 113, no. 10, pp. 1827–1831, 2006.

G. S. Tan, T. Y. Wong, C.-W. Fong, and T. Aung, “Diabetes, metabolic abnormalities, and glaucoma: the Singapore Malay Eye study,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 1354–1361, 2009.

P. Osaadon, X. J. Fagan, T. Lifshitz, and J. Levy, “A review of anti-VEGF agents for proliferative diabetic retinopathy,” Eye, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 510–520, 2014.

K. Skarbez, Y. Priestley, M. Hoepf, and S. B. Koevary, “Comprehensive review of the effects of diabetes on ocular health,” Expert Review of Ophthalmology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 557–577, 2010.

C. G. Owen, R. S. B. Newsom, A. R. Rudnicka, T. J. Ellis, and E. G. Woodward, “Vascular response of the bulbar conjunctiva to diabetes and elevated blood pressure,” Ophthalmology, vol. 112, no. 10, pp. 1801–1808, 2005.

R. O. Schultz, D. L. Van Horn, M. A. Peters, K. M. Klewin, and W. H. Schutten, “Diabetic keratopathy,” Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society, vol. 79, pp. 180–199, 1981.

R. O. Schultz, M. Matsuda, R. W. Yee, H. F. Edelhauser, and K. J. Schultz, “Corneal endothelial changes in type I and type II diabetes mellitus,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 401–410, 1984.

S. Mishima, “The effects of the denervation and the stimulation of the sympathetic and the trigeminal nerve on the mitotic rate of the corneal epithelium in the rabbit,” Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 1, pp. 65–73, 1957.

K. Araki, Y. Ohashi, S. Kinoshita, K. Hayashi, Y. Kuwayama, and Y. Tano, “Epithelial wound healing in the denervated cornea,” Current Eye Research, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 203–211, 1994.

M. G. Alper, “The anesthetic eye: an investigation of changes in the anterior ocular segment of the monkey caused by interrupting the trigeminal nerve at various levels along its course,” Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society, vol. 73, pp. 323–365, 1976.

K. S. Baker, S. C. Anderson, E. G. Romanowski, R. A. Thoft, and N. SundarRaj, “Trigeminal ganglion neurons affect corneal epithelial phenotype: influence on type VII collagen expression in vitro,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 137–144, 1993.

R. O. Schultz, M. A. Peters, K. Sobocinski, K. Nassif, and K. J. Schultz, “Diabetic keratopathy as a manifestation of peripheral neuropathy,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 368–371, 1983.

M. Dogru, C. Katakami, and M. Inoue, “Tear function and ocular surface changes in noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,” Ophthalmology, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 586–592, 2001.

K.-C. Yoon, S.-K. Im, and M.-S. Seo, “Changes of tear film and ocular surface in diabetes mellitus,” Korean Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 168–174, 2004.

M. Goebbels, “Tear secretion and tear film function in insulin dependent diabetics,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 19–21, 2000.

J. Saito, M. Enoki, M. Hara, N. Morishige, T.-I. Chikama, and T. Nishida, “Correlation of corneal sensation, but not of basal or reflex tear secretion, with the stage of diabetic retinopathy,” Cornea, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 15–18, 2003.

K. Inoue, S. Kato, C. Ohara, J. Numaga, S. Amano, and T. Oshika, “Ocular and systemic factors relevant to diabetic keratoepitheliopathy,” Cornea, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 798–801, 2001.

D. E. Schwartz, “Corneal sensitivity in diabetics,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 174–178, 1974.

M. E. Rosenberg, T. M. T. Tervo, I. J. Immonen, L. J. Muller, C. Gronhagen-Riska, and M. H. Vesaluoma, “Corneal structure and sensitivity in type 1 diabetes mellitus,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 2915–2921, 2000.

M. Gekka, K. Miyata, Y. Nagai et al., “Corneal epithelial barrier function in diabetic patients,” Cornea, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 35–37, 2004.

M. Göbbels, M. Spitznas, and J. Oldendoerp, “Impairment of corneal epithelial barrier function in diabetics,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 227, no. 2, pp. 142–144, 1989.

N. Busted, T. Olsen, and O. Schmitz, “Clinical observations on the corneal thickness and the corneal endothelium in diabetes mellitus,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 687–690, 1981.

D. H. W. Su, T. Y. Wong, W.-L. Wong et al., “Diabetes, hyperglycemia, and central corneal thickness: the Singapore Malay Eye Study,” Ophthalmology, vol. 115, no. 6, pp. 964–968.e1, 2008.

J. S. Saini and S. Mittal, “In vivo assessment of corneal endothelial function in diabetes mellitus,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 114, no. 6, pp. 649–653, 1996.

J. S. Lee, B. S. Oum, H. Y. Choi, J. E. Lee, and B. M. Cho, “Differences in corneal thickness and corneal endothelium related to duration in diabetes,” Eye, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 315–318, 2006.

D. K. Karumanchi, E. R. Gaillard, and J. Dillon, “Early diagnosis of diabetes through the eye,” Photochemistry and Photobiology, vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 1497–1504, 2015.

O. Toygar, S. Sizmaz, A. Pelit, B. Toygar, Ö. Yabas kiziloğlu, and Y. Akova, “Central corneal thickness in type II diabetes mellitus: is it related to the severity of diabetic retinopathy?” Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 651–654, 2015.

D. L. DeMill, M. Hussain, R. Pop-Busui, and R. M. Shtein, “Ocular surface disease in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, 2015.

J. Henriques, S. Vaz-Pereira, J. Nascimento, and P. C. Rosa, “Diabetic eye disease,” Acta Medica Portuguesa, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 107–113, 2015.

A. Ishibazawa, T. Nagaoka, Y. Minami, M. Kitahara, T. Yamashita, and A. Yoshida, “Choroidal thickness evaluation before and after hemodialysis in patients with and without diabetes,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 6534–6541, 2015.

S. L. Misra, J. P. Craig, D. V. Patel et al., “In vivo confocal microscopy of corneal nerves: an ocular biomarker for peripheral and cardiac autonomic neuropathy in type 1 diabetes mellitus,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 5060–5065, 2015.

J. Baek, S. H. Doh, and S. K. Chung, “Assessment of the tear meniscus using optical coherence tomography in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Cornea, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 1534–1540, 2015.

T. Utsunomiya, T. Nagaoka, K. Hanada et al., “Imaging of the corneal subbasal whorl-like nerve plexus: more accurate depiction of the extent of corneal nerve damage in patients with diabetes,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 5417–5423, 2015.

S. L. Misra, G. D. Braatvedt, and D. V. Patel, “Impact of diabetes mellitus on the ocular surface: a review,” Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 2015.

N. Efron, “Contact lens-induced changes in the anterior eye as observed in vivo with the confocal microscope,” Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 398–436, 2007.

C. N. Grupcheva, G. S. M. Chew, M. Edwards, J. P. Craig, and C. N. J. McGhee, “Imaging posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy by in vivo confocal microscopy,” Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 256–259, 2001.

R. L. Niederer, D. Perumal, T. Sherwin, and C. N. J. McGhee, “Laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy reveals reduced innervation and reduction in cell density in all layers of the keratoconic cornea,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 2964–2970, 2008.

D. V. Patel, C. N. Grupcheva, and C. N. J. McGhee, “In vivo confocal microscopy of posterior polymorphous dystrophy,” Cornea, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 550–554, 2005.

K. Edwards, N. Pritchard, K. Gosschalk et al., “Wide-field assessment of the human corneal subbasal nerve plexus in diabetic neuropathy using a novel mapping technique,” Cornea, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1078–1082, 2012.

E. M. Messmer, C. Schmid-Tannwald, D. Zapp, and A. Kampik, “In vivo confocal microscopy of corneal small fiber damage in diabetes mellitus,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 248, no. 9, pp. 1307–1312, 2010.

S. Misra, H. N. Ahn, J. P. Craig, M. Pradhan, D. V. Patel, and C. N. J. McGhee, “Effect of panretinal photocoagulation on corneal sensation and the corneal subbasal nerve plexus in diabetes mellitus,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 4485–4490, 2013.

P. Hertz, V. Bril, A. Orszag et al., “Reproducibility of in vivo corneal confocal microscopy as a novel screening test for early diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy,” Diabetic Medicine, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 1253–1260, 2011.

M. Tavakoli, P. Kallinikos, A. Iqbal et al., “Corneal confocal microscopy detects improvement in corneal nerve morphology with an improvement in risk factors for diabetic neuropathy,” Diabetic Medicine, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 1261–1267, 2011.

B. E. K. Klein, R. Klein, and S. E. Moss, “Prevalence of cataracts in a population-based study of persons with diabetes mellitus,” Ophthalmology, vol. 92, no. 9, pp. 1191–1196, 1985.

K. Negahban and K. Chern, “Cataracts associated with systemic disorders and syndromes,” Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 419–422, 2002.

K. Krepler, R. Biowski, S. Schrey, K. Jandrasits, and A. Wedrich, “Cataract surgery in patients with diabetic retinopathy: visual outcome, progression of diabetic retinopathy, and incidence of diabetic macular oedema,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 240, no. 9, pp. 735–738, 2002.

D. Squirrell, R. Bhola, J. Bush, S. Winder, and J. F. Talbot, “A prospective, case controlled study of the natural history of diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy after uncomplicated phacoemulsification cataract surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 565–571, 2002.

P. Romero-Aroca, J. Fernández-Ballart, M. Almena-Garcia, I. Méndez-Marín, M. Salvat-Serra, and J. A. Buil-Calvo, “Nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy and macular edema progression after phacoemulsification: prospective study,” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1438–1444, 2006.

J. G. F. Dowler, P. G. Hykin, and A. M. P. Hamilton, “Phacoemulsification versus extracapsular cataract extraction in patients with diabetes,” Ophthalmology, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 457–462, 2000.

J. G. F. Dowler, P. G. Hykin, S. L. Lightman, and A. M. Hamilton, “Visual acuity following extracapsular cataract extraction in diabetes: a meta-analysis,” Eye, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 313–317, 1995.

T. Kodama, S. Hayasaka, and T. Setogawa, “Plasma glucose levels, postoperative complications, and progression of retinopathy in diabetic patients undergoing intraocular lens implantation,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 231, no. 8, pp. 439–443, 1993.

C. Suto, S. Hori, and S. Kato, “Management of type 2 diabetics requiring panretinal photocoagulation and cataract surgery,” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1001–1006, 2008.

C. Y. Park, J. K. Lee, P. K. Gore, C.-Y. Lim, and R. S. Chuck, “Keratoplasty in the United States. A 10-Year review from 2005 through 2014,” Ophthalmology, vol. 122, no. 12, pp. 2432–2442, 2015.

J. K. Darlington, S. D. Adrean, and I. R. Schwab, “Trends of penetrating keratoplasty in the United States from 1980 to 2004,” Ophthalmology, vol. 113, no. 12, pp. 2171–2175, 2006.

F. W. Price Jr. and M. O. Price, “Descemet's stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 50 eyes: a refractive neutral corneal transplant,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 339–345, 2005.

M. S. Gorovoy, “Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty,” Cornea, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 886–889, 2006.

J. T. Lie, E. A. Groeneveld-van Beek, L. Ham, J. van der Wees, and G. R. J. Melles, “More efficient use of donor corneal tissue with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): two lamellar keratoplasty procedures with one donor cornea,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 94, no. 9, pp. 1265–1266, 2010.

G. R. J. Melles, T. S. Ong, B. Ververs, and J. van der Wees, “Preliminary clinical results of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 222–227, 2008.

T.-I. Chikama, M. Wakuta, Y. Liu, and T. Nishida, “Deviated mechanism of wound healing in diabetic corneas,” Cornea, vol. 26, supplement 1, no. 9, pp. S75–S81, 2007.

F. W. Fraunfelder and L. F. Rich, “Laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis complications in diabetes mellitus,” Cornea, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 246–248, 2002.

H. V. Gimbel, J. A. van Westenbrugge, E. E. Anderson Penno, M. Ferensowicz, G. A. Feinerman, and R. Chen, “Simultaneous bilateral laser in situ keratomileusis: safety and efficacy,” Ophthalmology, vol. 106, no. 8, pp. 1461–1468, 1999.

M. Y. Wang and R. K. Maloney, “Epithelial ingrowth after laser in situ keratomileusis,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 129, no. 6, pp. 746–751, 2000.

R. D. Stulting, J. D. Carr, K. P. Thompson, G. O. Waring III, W. M. Wiley, and J. G. Walker, “Complications of laser in situ keratomileusis for the correction of myopia,” Ophthalmology, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 13–20, 1999.

N. S. Jabbur, C. F. Chicani, I. C. Kuo, and T. P. O'Brien, “Risk factors in interface epithelialization after laser in situ keratomileusis,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 343–348, 2004.

H. Ghanbari and H. Ahmadieh, “Aggravation of proliferative diabetic retinopathy after laser in situ keratomileusis,” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 2232–2233, 2003.

G. H. Pettit, “The ideal excimer beam for refractive surgery,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. S969–S972, 2006.

J. Y. Kim, M. J. Kim, T. I. Kim, H. J. Choi, J. H. Pak, and H. Tchah, “A femtosecond laser creates a stronger flap than a mechanical microkeratome,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 599–604, 2006.

R. Stein, “Photorefractive keratectomy,” International Ophthalmology Clinics, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 35–56, 2000.

S. G. Slade, “The use of the femtosecond laser in the customization of corneal flaps in laser in situ keratomileusis,” Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 314–317, 2007.

Z. Z. Nagy, O. Fekete, and I. Süveges, “Photorefractive keratectomy for myopia with the meditec MEL 70G-Scan flying spot laser,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 319–326, 2001.

B. Xuan, D. A. McClellan, R. Moore, and G. C. Y. Chiou, “Alternative delivery of insulin via eye drops,” Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 695–698, 2005.

D. J. Pillion, J. A. Atchison, J. Stott, D. McCracken, C. Gargiulo, and E. Meezan, “Efficacy of insulin eyedrops,” Journal of Ocular Pharmacology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 461–470, 1994.

S. X. L. Liu and G. C. Y. Chiou, “Feasibility of insulin eyedrops for human use,” Journal of Ocular Pharmacology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 587–590, 1994.

J. D. Bartlett, A. Turner-Henson, J. A. Atchison, T. W. Woolley, and D. J. Pillion, “Insulin administration to the eyes of normoglycemic human volunteers,” Journal of Ocular Pharmacology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 683–690, 1994.

R. Barclay, Google Scientists Create Contact Lens to Measure Blood Sugar Levels in Tears, 2014, http://www.healthline.com/health-news/diabetes-google-develops-glucose-monitoring-contact-lens-012314.

C. Hasslacher, G. Auffarth, I. Platten et al., “Safety and accuracy of a new long-term subconjunctival glucose sensor,” Journal of Diabetes, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 291–296, 2012.

A. J. Müller, M. Knuth, K. S. Nikolaus, and P. Herbrechtsmeier, “First clinical evaluation of a new long-term subconjunctival glucose sensor,” Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 875–883, 2012.

A. J. Müller, M. Knuth, K. S. Nikolaus et al., “Blood glucose self-monitoring with a long-term subconjunctival glucose sensor,” Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 24–34, 2013.

A. V. Ljubimov and M. Saghizadeh, “Progress in corneal wound healing,” Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, vol. 49, pp. 17–45, 2015.

H. D. Logothetis, S. M. Leikin, and T. Patrianakos, “Management of anterior segment trauma,” Disease-a-Month, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 247–253, 2014.

A. M. Messman, “Ocular injuries: new strategies in emergency department management,” Emergency Medicine Practice, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1–22, 2015.

A. A. Torricelli, A. Santhanam, J. Wu, V. Singh, and S. E. Wilson, “The corneal fibrosis response to epithelial-stromal injury,” Experimental Eye Research, vol. 142, pp. 110–118, 2016.

F. Ahmed, R. J. House, and B. H. Feldman, “Corneal abrasions and corneal foreign bodies,” Primary Care, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 363–375, 2015.

D. Karamichos and J. Hjortdal, “Keratoconus: tissue engineering and biomaterials,” Journal of Functional Biomaterials, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 111–134, 2014.

M. A. Stepp, J. D. Zieske, V. Trinkaus-Randall et al., “Wounding the cornea to learn how it heals,” Experimental Eye Research, vol. 121, pp. 178–193, 2014.

C. E. Hamill, S. Bozorg, H.-Y. Peggy Chang et al., “Corneal alkali burns: a review of the literature and proposed protocol for evaluation and treatment,” International Ophthalmology Clinics, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 185–194, 2013.

R. Gil-Cazorla, M. A. Teus, J. L. Hernández-Verdejo, L. De Benito-Llopis, and M. García-González, “Comparative study of two silicone hydrogel contact lenses used as bandage contact lenses after LASEK,” Optometry and Vision Science, vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 884–888, 2008.

J. P. Szaflik, A. M. Ambroziak, and J. Szaflik, “Therapeutic use of a lotrafilcon A silicone hydrogel soft contact lens as a bandage after LASEK surgery,” Eye and Contact Lens, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 59–62, 2004.

G. Cormier, I. Brunette, H. M. Boisjoly, M. LeFrançois, Z. H. Shi, and M.-C. Guertin, “Anterior stromal punctures for bullous keratopathy,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 114, no. 6, pp. 654–658, 1996.

S. B. Koenig and R. O. Schultz, “Penetrating keratoplasty for pseudophakic bullous keratopathy after extracapsular cataract extraction,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 348–353, 1988.

E. E. Manche, G. N. Holland, and R. K. Maloney, “Deep lamellar keratoplasty using viscoelastic dissection,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 11, pp. 1561–1565, 1999.

M. Anwar and K. D. Teichmann, “Big-bubble technique to bare Descemet's membrane in anterior lamellar keratoplasty,” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 398–403, 2002.

A. Kubaloglu, E. S. Sari, M. Unal et al., “Long-term results of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for the treatment of keratoconus,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 151, no. 5, pp. 760–767, 2011.

E. Guilbert, J. Bullet, O. Sandali, E. Basli, L. Laroche, and V. M. Borderie, “Long-term rejection incidence and reversibility after penetrating and lamellar keratoplasty,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 155, no. 3, pp. 560.e2–569.e2, 2013.

M. A. Woodward, M. Titus, K. Mavin, and R. M. Shtein, “Corneal donor tissue preparation for endothelial keratoplasty,” Journal of Visualized Experiments, no. 64, p. e3847, 2012.

M. Moshirfar, L. M. Imbornoni, V. Muthappan et al., “In vitro pilot analysis of uniformity, circularity, and concentricity of DSAEK donor endothelial grafts prepared by a microkeratome,” Cornea, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 191–196, 2014.

J. M. Vetter, C. Butsch, M. Faust et al., “Irregularity of the posterior corneal surface after curved interface femtosecond laser-assisted versus microkeratome-assisted descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty,” Cornea, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 118–124, 2013.

V. V. Mootha, E. Heck, S. M. Verity et al., “Comparative study of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty donor preparation by moria cbm microkeratome, horizon microkeratome, and intralase FS60,” Cornea, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 320–324, 2011.

M. Busin, A. K. Patel, V. Scorcia, and D. Ponzin, “Microkeratome-assisted preparation of ultrathin grafts for descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 521–524, 2012.

S. Sikder, R. N. Nordgren, S. R. Neravetla, and M. Moshirfar, “Ultra-thin donor tissue preparation for endothelial keratoplasty with a double-pass microkeratome,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 152, no. 2, pp. 202.e2–208.e2, 2011.

A. Waite, R. Davidson, and M. J. Taravella, “Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty donor tissue preparation using the double-pass microkeratome technique,” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 446–450, 2013.

S. F. Abcouwer, “Angiogenic factors and cytokines in diabetic retinopathy,” Journal of Clinical & Cellular Immunology, supplement 1, article 011, 2013.

M. N. Yasin, D. Svirskis, A. Seyfoddin, and I. D. Rupenthal, “Implants for drug delivery to the posterior segment of the eye: a focus on stimuli-responsive and tunable release systems,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 196, pp. 208–221, 2014.

D. Pardo-López, E. Francés-Muñoz, R. Gallego-Pinazo, and M. Díaz-Llopis, “Anterior chamber migration of dexametasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®),” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 250, no. 11, pp. 1703–1704, 2012.

N. Kuno and S. Fujii, “Biodegradable intraocular therapies for retinal disorders: progress to date,” Drugs and Aging, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 117–134, 2010.

Y. E. Choonara, V. Pillay, M. P. Danckwerts, T. R. Carmichael, and L. C. du Toit, “A review of implantable intravitreal drug delivery technologies for the treatment of posterior segment eye diseases,” Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 2219–2239, 2010.

D. J. Lee, “Intraocular implants for the treatment of autoimmune uveitis,” Journal of Functional Biomaterials, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 650–666, 2015.

C. A. Arcinue, O. M. Cerón, and C. S. Foster, “A comparison between the fluocinolone acetonide (Retisert) and dexamethasone (Ozurdex) intravitreal implants in uveitis,” Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 501–507, 2013.

A.-M. Lobo, L. Sobrin, and G. N. Papaliodis, “Drug delivery options for the treatment of ocular inflammation,” Seminars in Ophthalmology, vol. 25, no. 5-6, pp. 283–288, 2010.

B. D. Kuppermann, M. S. Blumenkranz, J. A. Haller et al., “Randomized controlled study of an intravitreous dexamethasone drug delivery system in patients with persistent macular edema,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 309–317, 2007.

G. A. Williams, J. A. Haller, B. D. Kuppermann et al., “Dexamethasone posterior-segment drug delivery system in the treatment of macular edema resulting from uveitis or Irvine-Gass syndrome,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 147, no. 6, pp. 1048.e2–1054.e2, 2009.

A. Agarwal, R. Afridi, M. Hassan et al., “Novel therapies in development for diabetic macular edema,” Current Diabetes Reports, vol. 15, no. 10, article 75, 2015.

A. J. Augustin, B. D. Kuppermann, P. Lanzetta et al., “Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in previously treated patients with diabetic macular edema: subgroup analysis of the MEAD study,” BMC Ophthalmology, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 150, 2015.

D. S. Boyer, Y. H. Yoon, R. Belfort et al., “Three-year, randomized, sham-controlled trial of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with diabetic macular edema,” Ophthalmology, vol. 121, no. 10, pp. 1904–1914, 2014.

M. Cabrera, S. Yeh, and T. A. Albini, “Sustained-release corticosteroid options,” Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 2014, Article ID 164692, 5 pages, 2014.

P. A. Pearson, T. L. Comstock, M. Ip et al., “Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for diabetic macular edema: a 3-year multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial,” Ophthalmology, vol. 118, no. 8, pp. 1580–1587, 2011.

J. Cunha-Vaz, P. Ashton, R. Iezzi et al., “Sustained delivery fluocinolone acetonide vitreous implants: long-term benefit in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema,” Ophthalmology, vol. 121, no. 10, pp. 1892–1903, 2014.

E. W. M. Ng, D. T. Shima, P. Calias, E. T. Cunningham Jr., D. R. Guyer, and A. P. Adamis, “Pegaptanib, a targeted anti-VEGF aptamer for ocular vascular disease,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 123–132, 2006.

R. Morjaria and N. V. Chong, “Pharmacokinetic evaluation of pegaptanib octasodium for the treatment of diabetic edema,” Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1185–1192, 2014.

M. W. Stewart, “Anti-VEGF therapy for diabetic macular edema,” Current Diabetes Reports, vol. 14, no. 8, article 510, 2014.

N. Papadopoulos, J. Martin, Q. Ruan et al., “Binding and neutralization of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and related ligands by VEGF Trap, ranibizumab and bevacizumab,” Angiogenesis, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 171–185, 2012.

F. G. Holz, W. Amoaku, J. Donate et al., “Safety and efficacy of a flexible dosing regimen of ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: the SUSTAIN study,” Ophthalmology, vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 663–671, 2011.

M. W. Stewart, “Predicted biologic activity of intravitreal bevacizumab,” Retina, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1196–1200, 2007.

N. S. Dawson, D. C. Zawieja, M. H. Wu, and H. J. Granger, “Signaling pathways mediating VEGF165-induced calcium transients and membrane depolarization in human endothelial cells,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 991–993, 2006.

T. Meyer, L. Robles-Carrillo, T. Robson et al., “Bevacizumab immune complexes activate platelets and induce thrombosis in FCGR2A transgenic mice,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 171–181, 2009.

R. Costa, Â. Carneiro, A. Rocha et al., “Bevacizumab and ranibizumab on microvascular endothelial cells: a comparative study,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1410–1417, 2009.

J. Holash, S. Davis, N. Papadopoulos et al., “VEGF-Trap: a VEGF blocker with potent antitumor effects,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 99, no. 17, pp. 11393–11398, 2002.

N. Gahlaut, S. Suarez, M. I. Uddin, A. Y. Gordon, S. M. Evans, and A. Jayagopal, “Nanoengineering of therapeutics for retinal vascular disease,” European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, vol. 95, pp. 323–330, 2015.

S. K. Yandrapu, A. K. Upadhyay, J. M. Petrash, and U. B. Kompella, “Nanoparticles in porous microparticles prepared by supercritical infusion and pressure quench technology for sustained delivery of bevacizumab,” Molecular Pharmaceutics, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 4676–4686, 2013.

P. Tyagi, M. Barros, J. W. Stansbury, and U. B. Kompella, “Light-activated, in situ forming gel for sustained suprachoroidal delivery of bevacizumab,” Molecular Pharmaceutics, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2858–2867, 2013.

L. Zhang, T. Si, A. J. Fischer et al., “Coaxial electrospray of ranibizumab-loaded microparticles for sustained release of anti-VEGF therapies,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 8, Article ID e0135608, 2015.

M. L. Lovett, X. Wang, T. Yucel et al., “Silk hydrogels for sustained ocular delivery of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapeutics,” European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, vol. 95, pp. 271–278, 2015.

L. R. Asmus, J. P. A. Grimshaw, P. Richle et al., “Injectable formulations for an intravitreal sustained-release application of a novel single-chain VEGF antibody fragment,” European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, vol. 95, pp. 250–260, 2015.

Treating the Symptoms of Wet AMD—Neurotech Pharmaceuticals, 2015, http://www.neurotechusa.com/VEGF-Antagonist.html

J. L. Bourges, C. Bloquel, A. Thomas et al., “Intraocular implants for extended drug delivery: therapeutic applications,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1182–1202, 2006.

P. Calvo, B. Abadia, A. Ferreras, O. Ruiz-Moreno, G. Verdes, and L. E. Pablo, “Diabetic macular edema: options for adjunct therapy,” Drugs, vol. 75, no. 13, pp. 1461–1469, 2015.

P. Stalmans, M. S. Benz, A. Gandorfer et al., “Enzymatic vitreolysis with ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction and macular holes,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 367, no. 7, pp. 606–615, 2012.

L. Luo, X. Zhang, Y. Hirano et al., “Targeted intraceptor nanoparticle therapy reduces angiogenesis and fibrosis in primate and murine macular degeneration,” ACS Nano, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 3264–3275, 2013.

M. Friedlander, C. L. Theesfeld, M. Sugita et al., “Involvement of integrins αvβ3 and αvβ5 in ocular neovascular diseases,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 93, no. 18, pp. 9764–9769, 1996.

H.-A. Liu, Y.-L. Liu, Z.-Z. Ma, J.-C. Wang, and Q. Zhang, “A lipid nanoparticle system improves siRNA efficacy in RPE cells and a laser-induced murine CNV model,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 4789–4794, 2011.

A. Keech, P. Mitchell, P. Summanen et al., “Effect of fenofibrate on the need for laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy (FIELD study): a randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet, vol. 370, no. 9600, pp. 1687–1697, 2007.

I. H. De Boer, “Kidney disease and related findings in the diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study,” Diabetes Care, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 24–30, 2014.

F. Xu, L. Zhao, J. Su et al., “The relationship between glycemic variability and diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c,” Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 139, 2014.

J. Šoupal, J. Škrha Jr., M. Fajmon et al., “Glycemic variability is higher in type 1 diabetes patients with microvascular complications irrespective of glycemic control,” Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 198–203, 2014.

F. J. Ascaso and V. Huerva, “Noninvasive continuous monitoring of tear glucose using glucose-sensing contact lenses,” Optometry & Vision Science, 2015.

N. M. Farandos, A. K. Yetisen, M. J. Monteiro, C. R. Lowe, and S. H. Yun, “Contact lens sensors in ocular diagnostics,” Advanced Healthcare Materials, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 792–810, 2015.

Writing Team for the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research Group, “Sustained effect of intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus on development and progression of diabetic nephropathy: the epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications (EDIC) study,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 290, no. 16, pp. 2159–2167, 2003.

D. O. Traktuev, S. Merfeld-Clauss, J. Li et al., “A population of multipotent CD34-positive adipose stromal cells share pericyte and mesenchymal surface markers, reside in a periendothelial location, and stabilize endothelial networks,” Circulation Research, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 77–85, 2008.

P. A. Zuk, M. Zhu, H. Mizuno et al., “Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: implications for cell-based therapies,” Tissue Engineering, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 211–228, 2001.

J. Rehman, D. Traktuev, J. Li et al., “Secretion of angiogenic and antiapoptotic factors by human adipose stromal cells,” Circulation, vol. 109, no. 10, pp. 1292–1298, 2004.

G. Rajashekhar, A. Ramadan, C. Abburi et al., “Regenerative therapeutic potential of adipose stromal cells in early stage diabetic retinopathy,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 1, Article ID e84671, 2014.