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
PND5 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Newborn Screening for Spinal Muscular Atrophy in the United States