A Relative Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Different Methods of Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy

1991 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 644-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.J. Sculpher ◽  
M.J. Buxton ◽  
B.A. Ferguson ◽  
J.E. Humphreys ◽  
J.F.B. Altman ◽  
...  
1992 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Sculpher ◽  
M. J. Buxton ◽  
B. A. Ferguson ◽  
D. J. Spiegelhalter ◽  
A. J. Kirby

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (5) ◽  
pp. 818-824

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) causes blindness of the population in many countries worldwide. Early detection and treatment of this disease via a DR screening program is the best way to secure the vision. An annual screening program using pharmacological pupil dilatation becomes the standard method. Recently, non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography (UWF) has been proposed as a choice for DR screening. However, there was no cost-effectiveness study between the standard DR screening and this UWF approach. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness between UWF and pharmacological pupil dilatation in terms of hospital and societal perspectives. Materials and Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that visited the ophthalmology clinic at Chulabhorn Hospital for DR screening were randomized using simple randomization method. The patients were interviewed by a trained interviewer for general and economic information. The clinical characteristics of DR and staging were recorded. Direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and informal care costs due to DR screening were recorded. Cost analyses were calculated for the hospital and societal perspectives. Results: The present study presented the cost-effectiveness analyses of UWF versus pharmacological pupil dilatation. Cost-effectiveness analysis from the hospital perspective showed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UWF to be –13.87. UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening in the societal perspective when compared with pharmacologically pupil dilatation with the ICER of 76.46, under the threshold of willingness to pay. Conclusion: The UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening. It can reduce screening duration and bypass post-screening blurred vision. The results suggested that UWF could be a viable option for DR screening. Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy, Diabetic retinopathy screening, Non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography, Cost-effectiveness analysis


CMAJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. E95-E102 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. C. Coronado ◽  
G. S. Zaric ◽  
J. Martin ◽  
M. Malvankar-Mehta ◽  
F. F. Si ◽  
...  

Diabetes Care ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 1095-1101 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Aoki ◽  
K. Dunn ◽  
T. Fukui ◽  
J. R. Beck ◽  
W. J. Schull ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blake Angell ◽  
Ferhina Ali ◽  
Monica Gandhi ◽  
Umang Mathur ◽  
David S Friedman ◽  
...  

ObjectiveReady-made spectacles have been suggested as a less resource-intensive treatment for the millions of people living with uncorrected refractive error (URE) in low-income environments. In spite of this interest, there have been no published economic evaluations examining the cost-effectiveness of ready-made spectacles. This study aims to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of offering ready-made spectacles (RMS) relative to no intervention as well as the relative cost-effectiveness of custom-made spectacles (CS) relative to RMS to treat URE.Methods and analysisThe relative cost-effectiveness of RMS relative to CS and no intervention was tested through a cost-effectiveness analysis from the health service provider perspective conducted alongside a double-masked randomised controlled trial in an urban hospital in Delhi, India. Participants were adults aged 18–45 years with ≥1 dioptre (D) of URE.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the effectiveness of the CS and RMS interventions in improving visual acuity, but the CS was over four times the price of the RMS per patient (204 INR (US$2.42) and 792 INR (US$11.22)). The cost per unit improvement in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) relative to baseline with the RMS intervention was 407 INR (US$4.35). Existing estimates of utility resulting from improvements in visual acuity result in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years gained of between 212 INR and 1137 INR (US$0.44–US$23.74) depending on the source of the utility estimate and assumed expected life of the spectacles.ConclusionRMS represent a significantly cost-effective option for spectacle provision in low-resource settings. The RMS programme was substantially cheaper than an equivalent CS intervention while being effective in improving visual acuity for the majority of adults with refractive error in this setting. These findings provide further support for including RMS in programmes to address URE.Trial registration numberNCT00657670 , Results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document