Improving the cost-effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema: a prospective, multi-centre, UK study

Gordon Prescott, Peter Sharp, Keith Goatman, Graham Scotland, Alan Fleming, Sam Philip, Roger Staff, Cynthia Santiago, Shyamanga Borooah, Deborah Broadbent, Victor Chong, Paul Dodson, Simon Harding, Graham Leese, Roly Megaw, Caroline Styles, Ken Swa, Helen Wharton, John Olson*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background/aims: Retinal screening programmes in England and Scotland have similar photographic grading schemes for background (non-proliferative) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, but diverge over maculopathy. We looked for the most cost-effective method of identifying diabetic macular oedema from retinal photographs including the role of automated grading and optical coherence tomography, a technology that directly visualises oedema.

Methods: Patients from seven UK centres were recruited. The following features in at least one eye were required for enrolment: microaneurysms/dot haemorrhages or blot haemorrhages within one disc diameter, or exudates within one or two disc diameters of the centre of the macula. Subjects had optical coherence tomography and digital photography. Manual and automated grading schemes were evaluated. Costs and QALYs were modelled using microsimulation techniques.

Results: 3540 patients were recruited, 3170 were analysed. For diabetic macular oedema, England's scheme had a sensitivity of 72.6% and specificity of 66.8%; Scotland 's had a sensitivity of 59.5% and specificity of 79.0%. When applying a ceiling ratio of £30 000 per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, Scotland's scheme was preferred. Assuming automated grading could be implemented without increasing grading costs, automation produced a greater number of QALYS for a lower cost than England's scheme, but was not cost effective, at the study's operating point, compared with Scotland's. The addition of optical coherence tomography, to each scheme, resulted in cost savings without reducing health benefits.

Conclusions: Retinal screening programmes in the UK should reconsider the screening pathway to make best use of existing and new technologies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1042-1049
Number of pages8
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume98
Issue number8
Early online date28 Mar 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Dec 2014

Fingerprint

Macular Edema
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Scotland
Optical Coherence Tomography
Costs and Cost Analysis
England
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Hemorrhage
Technology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Cost Savings
Photography
Automation
Insurance Benefits
Diabetic Retinopathy
Exudates and Transudates
Edema

Bibliographical note

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

Cite this

Prescott, Gordon ; Sharp, Peter ; Goatman, Keith ; Scotland, Graham ; Fleming, Alan ; Philip, Sam ; Staff, Roger ; Santiago, Cynthia ; Borooah, Shyamanga ; Broadbent, Deborah ; Chong, Victor ; Dodson, Paul ; Harding, Simon ; Leese, Graham ; Megaw, Roly ; Styles, Caroline ; Swa, Ken ; Wharton, Helen ; Olson, John. / Improving the cost-effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema : a prospective, multi-centre, UK study. In: British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2014 ; Vol. 98, No. 8. pp. 1042-1049.
@article{ed5cab7428334eecb503db60ba852eb0,
title = "Improving the cost-effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema: a prospective, multi-centre, UK study",
abstract = "Background/aims: Retinal screening programmes in England and Scotland have similar photographic grading schemes for background (non-proliferative) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, but diverge over maculopathy. We looked for the most cost-effective method of identifying diabetic macular oedema from retinal photographs including the role of automated grading and optical coherence tomography, a technology that directly visualises oedema. Methods: Patients from seven UK centres were recruited. The following features in at least one eye were required for enrolment: microaneurysms/dot haemorrhages or blot haemorrhages within one disc diameter, or exudates within one or two disc diameters of the centre of the macula. Subjects had optical coherence tomography and digital photography. Manual and automated grading schemes were evaluated. Costs and QALYs were modelled using microsimulation techniques. Results: 3540 patients were recruited, 3170 were analysed. For diabetic macular oedema, England's scheme had a sensitivity of 72.6{\%} and specificity of 66.8{\%}; Scotland 's had a sensitivity of 59.5{\%} and specificity of 79.0{\%}. When applying a ceiling ratio of £30 000 per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, Scotland's scheme was preferred. Assuming automated grading could be implemented without increasing grading costs, automation produced a greater number of QALYS for a lower cost than England's scheme, but was not cost effective, at the study's operating point, compared with Scotland's. The addition of optical coherence tomography, to each scheme, resulted in cost savings without reducing health benefits. Conclusions: Retinal screening programmes in the UK should reconsider the screening pathway to make best use of existing and new technologies.",
author = "Gordon Prescott and Peter Sharp and Keith Goatman and Graham Scotland and Alan Fleming and Sam Philip and Roger Staff and Cynthia Santiago and Shyamanga Borooah and Deborah Broadbent and Victor Chong and Paul Dodson and Simon Harding and Graham Leese and Roly Megaw and Caroline Styles and Ken Swa and Helen Wharton and John Olson",
note = "Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304338",
language = "English",
volume = "98",
pages = "1042--1049",
journal = "British Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0007-1161",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "8",

}

Prescott, G, Sharp, P, Goatman, K, Scotland, G, Fleming, A, Philip, S, Staff, R, Santiago, C, Borooah, S, Broadbent, D, Chong, V, Dodson, P, Harding, S, Leese, G, Megaw, R, Styles, C, Swa, K, Wharton, H & Olson, J 2014, 'Improving the cost-effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema: a prospective, multi-centre, UK study', British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 98, no. 8, pp. 1042-1049. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304338

Improving the cost-effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema : a prospective, multi-centre, UK study. / Prescott, Gordon; Sharp, Peter; Goatman, Keith; Scotland, Graham; Fleming, Alan; Philip, Sam; Staff, Roger; Santiago, Cynthia; Borooah, Shyamanga; Broadbent, Deborah; Chong, Victor; Dodson, Paul; Harding, Simon; Leese, Graham; Megaw, Roly; Styles, Caroline; Swa, Ken; Wharton, Helen; Olson, John.

In: British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 98, No. 8, 31.12.2014, p. 1042-1049.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the cost-effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema

T2 - a prospective, multi-centre, UK study

AU - Prescott, Gordon

AU - Sharp, Peter

AU - Goatman, Keith

AU - Scotland, Graham

AU - Fleming, Alan

AU - Philip, Sam

AU - Staff, Roger

AU - Santiago, Cynthia

AU - Borooah, Shyamanga

AU - Broadbent, Deborah

AU - Chong, Victor

AU - Dodson, Paul

AU - Harding, Simon

AU - Leese, Graham

AU - Megaw, Roly

AU - Styles, Caroline

AU - Swa, Ken

AU - Wharton, Helen

AU - Olson, John

N1 - Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

PY - 2014/12/31

Y1 - 2014/12/31

N2 - Background/aims: Retinal screening programmes in England and Scotland have similar photographic grading schemes for background (non-proliferative) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, but diverge over maculopathy. We looked for the most cost-effective method of identifying diabetic macular oedema from retinal photographs including the role of automated grading and optical coherence tomography, a technology that directly visualises oedema. Methods: Patients from seven UK centres were recruited. The following features in at least one eye were required for enrolment: microaneurysms/dot haemorrhages or blot haemorrhages within one disc diameter, or exudates within one or two disc diameters of the centre of the macula. Subjects had optical coherence tomography and digital photography. Manual and automated grading schemes were evaluated. Costs and QALYs were modelled using microsimulation techniques. Results: 3540 patients were recruited, 3170 were analysed. For diabetic macular oedema, England's scheme had a sensitivity of 72.6% and specificity of 66.8%; Scotland 's had a sensitivity of 59.5% and specificity of 79.0%. When applying a ceiling ratio of £30 000 per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, Scotland's scheme was preferred. Assuming automated grading could be implemented without increasing grading costs, automation produced a greater number of QALYS for a lower cost than England's scheme, but was not cost effective, at the study's operating point, compared with Scotland's. The addition of optical coherence tomography, to each scheme, resulted in cost savings without reducing health benefits. Conclusions: Retinal screening programmes in the UK should reconsider the screening pathway to make best use of existing and new technologies.

AB - Background/aims: Retinal screening programmes in England and Scotland have similar photographic grading schemes for background (non-proliferative) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, but diverge over maculopathy. We looked for the most cost-effective method of identifying diabetic macular oedema from retinal photographs including the role of automated grading and optical coherence tomography, a technology that directly visualises oedema. Methods: Patients from seven UK centres were recruited. The following features in at least one eye were required for enrolment: microaneurysms/dot haemorrhages or blot haemorrhages within one disc diameter, or exudates within one or two disc diameters of the centre of the macula. Subjects had optical coherence tomography and digital photography. Manual and automated grading schemes were evaluated. Costs and QALYs were modelled using microsimulation techniques. Results: 3540 patients were recruited, 3170 were analysed. For diabetic macular oedema, England's scheme had a sensitivity of 72.6% and specificity of 66.8%; Scotland 's had a sensitivity of 59.5% and specificity of 79.0%. When applying a ceiling ratio of £30 000 per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, Scotland's scheme was preferred. Assuming automated grading could be implemented without increasing grading costs, automation produced a greater number of QALYS for a lower cost than England's scheme, but was not cost effective, at the study's operating point, compared with Scotland's. The addition of optical coherence tomography, to each scheme, resulted in cost savings without reducing health benefits. Conclusions: Retinal screening programmes in the UK should reconsider the screening pathway to make best use of existing and new technologies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905112725&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://bjo.bmj.com/content/98/8/1042

U2 - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304338

DO - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304338

M3 - Article

C2 - 24682180

AN - SCOPUS:84905112725

VL - 98

SP - 1042

EP - 1049

JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0007-1161

IS - 8

ER -