Cost-effectiveness of digital surveillance clinics with optical coherence tomography versus hospital eye service follow-up for patients with screen-positive maculopathy.
Journal
Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
received:
08
09
2018
accepted:
21
10
2018
revised:
11
10
2018
pubmed:
7
12
2018
medline:
14
8
2019
entrez:
4
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Annually 2.7 million individuals are offered screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in England. Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography (SD-OCT) has the potential to relieve pressure on NHS services by correctly identifying patients who are screen positive for maculopathy on two-dimensional photography without evidence of clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), limiting the number of referrals to hospitals. We aim to assess whether the addition of SDOCT imaging in digital surveillance clinics is a cost-effective intervention relative to hospital eye service (HES) follow-up. We used patient-level data from the Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Service linked to the local digital surveillance programme and HES between 2012 and 2015. A model was used to simulate the progression of individuals with background diabetic retinopathy (R1) and diabetic maculopathy (M1) following DR screening across the clinic pathways over 12 months. Between January 2012 and December 2014, 696 people undergoing DR screening were found to have screen-positive maculopathy in at least one eye for the first time, with a total of 766 eyes identified as having R1M1. The mean annual cost of assessing and surveillance through the SD-OCT clinic pathway was £101 (95% CI: 91-139) as compared with £177 (95%CI: 164-219) under the HES pathway. Surveillance under an SD-OCT clinic generated cost savings of £76 (95% CI: 70-81) per patient. Our analysis shows that SD-OCT surveillance of patients diagnosed as R1M1 at DR screening is not only cost-effective but generates considerable cost savings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Annually 2.7 million individuals are offered screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in England. Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography (SD-OCT) has the potential to relieve pressure on NHS services by correctly identifying patients who are screen positive for maculopathy on two-dimensional photography without evidence of clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), limiting the number of referrals to hospitals. We aim to assess whether the addition of SDOCT imaging in digital surveillance clinics is a cost-effective intervention relative to hospital eye service (HES) follow-up.
METHODS
We used patient-level data from the Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Service linked to the local digital surveillance programme and HES between 2012 and 2015. A model was used to simulate the progression of individuals with background diabetic retinopathy (R1) and diabetic maculopathy (M1) following DR screening across the clinic pathways over 12 months.
RESULTS
Between January 2012 and December 2014, 696 people undergoing DR screening were found to have screen-positive maculopathy in at least one eye for the first time, with a total of 766 eyes identified as having R1M1. The mean annual cost of assessing and surveillance through the SD-OCT clinic pathway was £101 (95% CI: 91-139) as compared with £177 (95%CI: 164-219) under the HES pathway. Surveillance under an SD-OCT clinic generated cost savings of £76 (95% CI: 70-81) per patient.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis shows that SD-OCT surveillance of patients diagnosed as R1M1 at DR screening is not only cost-effective but generates considerable cost savings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30504828
doi: 10.1038/s41433-018-0297-7
pii: 10.1038/s41433-018-0297-7
pmc: PMC6461849
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
640-647Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 1999 Feb;127(2):137-41
pubmed: 10030553
BMJ. 2000 Jun 17;320(7250):1627-31
pubmed: 10856062
Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 May;17(5):479-500
pubmed: 10977389
Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar;25(3):476-81
pubmed: 11874933
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992 Fall;8(4):694-707
pubmed: 1464489
Prim Care Diabetes. 2009 May;3(2):67-72
pubmed: 19540187
Br J Ophthalmol. 2010 Sep;94(9):1197-200
pubmed: 19965832
PLoS One. 2011 May 06;6(5):e14811
pubmed: 21573106
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD007419
pubmed: 23235642
BMJ Open. 2014 Feb 12;4(2):e004015
pubmed: 24525390
Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug;98(8):1042-9
pubmed: 24682180
Diabet Med. 2015 Apr;32(4):459-66
pubmed: 25439048
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Sep;19(74):1-116
pubmed: 26384314
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Oct;20(80):1-120
pubmed: 27809956
Arch Ophthalmol. 1985 Dec;103(12):1796-806
pubmed: 2866759
Diabetologia. 1982 Aug;23(2):138-40
pubmed: 6813169
Ophthalmology. 1981 Jul;88(7):583-600
pubmed: 7196564
Ann Intern Med. 1996 Jan 1;124(1 Pt 2):164-9
pubmed: 8554212