Diabetic retinopathy (DR) causes significant visual loss on a global scale. Treatments for the vision-threatening complications of diabetic macular edema (DME) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) have greatly improved over the past decade. However, additional therapeutic options are needed that take into account pathology associated with vascular, glial, and neuronal components of the diabetic retina. Recent work indicates that diabetes markedly impacts the retinal neurovascular unit and its interdependent vascular, neuronal, glial, and immune cells. This knowledge is leading to identification of new targets and therapeutic strategies for preventing or reversing retinal neuronal dysfunction, vascular leakage, ischemia, and pathologic angiogenesis. These advances, together with approaches embracing the potential of preventative or regenerative medicine, could provide the means to better manage DR, including treatment at earlier stages and more precise tailoring of treatments based on individual patient variations.

The concept of diabetic retinopathy as a microvascular disease has evolved, in that it is now considered a more complex diabetic complication in which neurodegeneration plays a significant role. In this article we provide a critical overview of the role of microvascular abnormalities and neurodegeneration in the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy. A special emphasis is placed on the pathophysiology of the neurovascular unit (NVU), including the contributions of microvascular and neural elements. The potential mechanisms linking retinal neurodegeneration and early microvascular impairment, and the effects of neuroprotective drugs are summarised. Additionally, we discuss how the assessment of retinal neurodegeneration could be an important index of cognitive status, thus helping to identify individuals at risk of dementia, which will impact on current procedures for diabetes management. We conclude that glial, neural and microvascular dysfunction are interdependent and essential for the development of diabetic retinopathy. Despite this intricate relationship, retinal neurodegeneration is a critical endpoint and neuroprotection, itself, can be considered a therapeutic target, independently of its potential impact on microvascular disease. In addition, interventional studies targeting pathogenic pathways that impact the NVU are needed. Findings from these studies will be crucial, not only for increasing our understanding of diabetic retinopathy, but also to help to implement a timely and efficient personalised medicine approach for treating this diabetic complication.

Endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) nomenclature remains ambiguous and there is a general lack of concordance in the stem cell field with many distinct cell subtypes continually grouped under the term “EPC.” It would be highly advantageous to agree on standards to confirm an endothelial progenitor phenotype and this should include detailed immunophenotyping, potency assays, and clear separation from hematopoietic angiogenic cells which are not endothelial progenitors. In this review, we seek to discourage the indiscriminate use of “EPCs,” and instead propose precise terminology based on defining cellular phenotype and function. Endothelial colony forming cells and myeloid angiogenic cells are examples of two distinct and well‐defined cell types that have been considered EPCs because they both promote vascular repair, albeit by completely different mechanisms of action. It is acknowledged that scientific nomenclature should be a dynamic process driven by technological and conceptual advances; ergo the ongoing “EPC” nomenclature ought not to be permanent and should become more precise in the light of strong scientific evidence. This is especially important as these cells become recognized for their role in vascular repair in health and disease and, in some cases, progress toward use in cell therapy. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2017;6:1316–1320