Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2020

Open Access 01-09-2020 | Type 2 Diabetes | Original Paper

Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening

Authors: Rebecca L. Thomas, Thomas G. Winfield, Matthew Prettyjohns, Frank D. Dunstan, Wai-Yee Cheung, Philippa M. Anderson, Rajesh Peter, Stephen D. Luzio, David R. Owens

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 7/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Examine the health and economic impact of extending screening intervals in people with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) without diabetes-related retinopathy (DR).

Setting

Diabetic Eye Screening Wales (DESW).

Study design

Retrospective observational study with cost-utility analysis (CUA) and Decremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (DCER) study.

Intervention

Biennial screening versus usual care (annual screening).

Inputs

Anonymised data from DESW were linked to primary care data for people with two prior screening events with no DR. Transition probabilities for progression to DR were estimated based on a subset of 26,812 and 1232 people with T2DM and T1DM, respectively. DCER above £20,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective.

Results

The base case analysis DCER results of £71,243 and £23,446 per QALY for T2DM and T1DM respectively at a 3.5% discount rate and £56,822 and £14,221 respectively when discounted at 1.5%. Diabetes management represented by the mean HbA1c was 7.5% for those with T2DM and 8.7% for T1DM.

Sensitivity analysis

Extending screening to biennial based on HbA1c, being the strongest predictor of progression of DR, at three levels of HbA1c 6.5%, 8.0% and 9.5% lost one QALY saving the NHS £106,075; £58,653 and £31,626 respectively for T2DM and £94,696, £37,646 and £11,089 respectively for T1DM. In addition, extending screening to biennial based on the duration of diabetes > 6 years for T2DM per QALY lost, saving the NHS £54,106 and for 6-12 and > 12 years for T1DM saving £83,856, £23,446 and £13,340 respectively.

Conclusions

Base case and sensitivity analyses indicate biennial screening to be cost-effective for T2DM irrespective of HbA1c and duration of diabetes. However, the uncertainty around the DCER indicates that annual screening should be maintained for those with T1DM especially when the HbA1c exceeds 80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and duration of diabetes is greater than 12 years.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Thomas, R.L., Halim, S., Gurudas, S., Sivaprasad, S., Owens, D.R.: IDF Diabetes Atlas: a review of studies utilising retinal photography on the global prevalence of diabetes related retinopathy between 2015 and 2018. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 157, 107840 (2019)PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zhang, P., Gregg, E.: Global economic burden of diabetes and its implications. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 5, 404–405 (2017)PubMedCrossRef
3.
Hex, N., Bartlett, C., Wright, D., Taylor, M., Varley, D.: Estimating the current and future costs of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabet. Med. 29, 855–862 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
Lloyd, A., Nafees, B., Gavriel, S., Royusculp, M.D., Boye, K.S., Ahmad, A.: Health utility values associated with diabetic retinopathy. Diabet. Med. 25, 618–624 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
6.
Pezzullo, L., Streatfeild, J., Simkiss, P., Shickle, D.: The economic impact of sight loss and blindness in the UK adult population. BMC Health Serv. Res. 18, 63 (2018)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Thomas, R.L., Luzio, S.D., North, R.V., Banerjee, S., Zekite, A., Bunce, C., et al.: Retrospective analysis of newly recorded certifications of visual impairment due to diabetic retinopathy in Wales during 2007-2015. BMJ Open 7, e015024 (2017)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
American Diabetes Association: Microvascular complications and foot care. Diabetes Care 40(supp 1), S88–S98 (2017)CrossRef
9.
Javitt, J.C., Aiello, L.P.: Cost-effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic retinopathy. Ann. Intern. Med. 124(1 Pt 2), 164–169 (1996)PubMedCrossRef
10.
Porta, M., Rizzitiello, A., Tomalino, M., Trento, M., Passera, P., Minonne, A., et al.: Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of three approaches to screening for and treating sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Metab. 25(1), 44–53 (1999)PubMed
11.
James, M., Turner, D.A., Broadbent, D.M., Vora, J., Harding, S.P.: Cost effectiveness analysis of screening for sight threatening diabetic eye disease. BMJ 320(June), 1627–1631 (2000)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Javitt, J.C., Aiello, L.P., Chiang, Y., Ferris III, F.L., Canner, J.K., Greenfield, S.: Preventative eye care in people with diabetes is cost-saving to the federal government. Diabetes Care 17(8), 909–917 (1994)PubMedCrossRef
13.
Thomas, R.L., Dunstan, F., Luzio, S.D., Roy Chowdhury, S., Hale, S.L., North, R.V., et al.: Incidence of Diabetic Retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending the Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Service for Wales: retrospective analysis. BMJ 344, e874 (2012)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Leese, G.P., Stratton, I.M., Land, M., Bachmann, M.O., Jones, C., Scanlon, P., et al.: Progression of diabetes retinal status within community screening programs and potential implications for screening intervals. Diabetes Care 38(3), 488–494 (2015)PubMedCrossRef
15.
Olafsdottir, E., Stefansson, E.: Biennial eye screening in diabetic patients without retinopathy 10 year experience. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 91(12), 1599–1601 (2007)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Agardh, E., Tababat-Khani, P.: Adopting 3-year screening intervals for sight-threatening retinal vascular lesions in type 2 diabetic subjects without retinopathy. Diabetes Care 34(6), 1318–1319 (2011)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Looker, H.C., Nyangoma, S.O., Cromie, T., Olson, J.A., Leese, G., Philip, S., et al.: Predicted impact of extending the screening interval for diabetic retinopathy: the Scottish diabetic retinopathy screening programme. Diabetologia 56(8), 1716–1725 (2013)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
UK National Screening Committee. UK NSC diabetic retinopathy recommendation. (2016)
19.
Younis, N., Broadbent, D.M., Vora, J.P., Harding, S.P.: Incidence of sight-threatening retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye study: a cohort study. Lancet. 361, 195–200 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
20.
Taylor-Phillips, S., Mistry, H., Leslie, R., Todkill, D., Tsertsvadze, A., Connock, M., et al.: Extending the diabetic retinopathy screening interval beyound 1 year: systematic review. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 100, 105–114 (2016)PubMedCrossRef
21.
Leslie, R., Todkill, D., Mistry, H., Taylor-Philips, S., Tsertvadze, A., Clarke, A.: Rapid literature review: would changing diabetic eye screening intervals from the current annual recommendation lead to changed clinical outcomes?. University of Warwick, Warwick (2013)
22.
Chalk, D., Pitt, M., Vaidya, B., Stein, K.: Can the retinal screening interval be safely increased to 2 years for type 2 diabetic patients without retinopathy? Diabetes Care 35(8), 1663–1668 (2012)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Lund, S.H., Aspelund, T., Kirby, P., Russell, G., Einarsson, S., Palsson, O., et al.: Individualised risk assessment for diabetic retinopathy and optimisation of screening intervals: a scientific approach to reducing healthcare costs. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 100, 683–687 (2016)PubMedCrossRef
24.
Livingstone, S.J., Looker, H.C., Hothersall, E.J., Wild, S.H., Linsay, R.S., Chalmers, J., et al.: Risk of cardiovascular disease and total mortality in adults with type 1 diabetes. Scottish registry linkage study. PLoS Med. 9, e1001321 (2012)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Scanlon, P., Aldington, S.J., Leal, J., Luengo-Fernandez, R., Oke, J., Sivaprasad, S., et al.: Development of a cost-effectivenss model for optimisation of the screening intervals in diabetetic retinopathy screening. Health Technol. Assess. 19, 1–116 (2015)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
The DCCT/EDIC Research Group: Frequency of evidence-based screening for retinopathy in Type 1 diabetes. NEJM. 376, 1507–1516 (2017)CrossRef
27.
Thomas, R.L., Dunstan, F.D., Luzio, S.D., Roy Chowdhury, S., Hale, S.L., North, R.V., et al.: Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy within the National screening programme of Wales. UK. BJO. 99, 64–68 (2015)CrossRef
28.
Lyons, R.A., Jones, K.H., John, G., Brooks, C.J., Verplancke, J., Ford, D.V., et al.: The SAIL databank; linking multiple health and social care datasets. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Making. 9, 3 (2009)CrossRef
29.
Lyons, R.A., Hutchings, H., Rodgers, S.E., Hyatt, M.A., Demmler, J., Gabbe, B.J., et al.: Development and use of a privacy-protecting total population record linkage system to support observational, interventional, and policy relevant research. Lancet. 380, s6 (2012)CrossRef
30.
Ford, D.V., Jones, K.H., Verplancke, J., Lyons, R.A., John, G., Brown, G., et al.: The SAIL Databank: building a national architecture for e-health research and evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res 9, 157 (2009)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Harding, S., Greenwood, R., Aldington, S., Gibson, J., Owens, D., Taylor, R., et al.: Grading and disease management in national screening for diabetic retinopathy in England and Wales. Diabet. Med. 20(12), 965–971 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
32.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. NICE, London (2012)
33.
Royle, P., Mistry, H., Auguste, P., Shyangdan, D., Freeman, K.D., Lois, N., et al. Pan-retinal photocoagulation and other forms of laser treatment and drug therapies for non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy: systematic review and economic evidence. Health Technol. Assess. 19(51), 1–247 (2015)CrossRef
34.
Ibanez-Bruron, M.C., Solebo, A.L., Cumberlund, P.M., Rahi, J.S.: Screening for diabetic retinopathy in children and young people in the UK: potential gaps in ascertainment of those at risk. Diabetic Med (2017)
35.
Diabetic Eye Screening Wales. Annual Report 2015–2016. Public Health Wales (2016)
36.
Eleuteri, A., Fisher, A.C., Broadbent, D.M., Garcia-Finana, M., Cheyne, C.P., Wang, A.H., et al.: Individualised variable-interval risk-based screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy: the Liverpool Risk Calculation Engine. Diabetologia 60, 2174–2182 (2017)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
38.
Walker, R.J., Strom Williams, J., Egede, L.E.: Influence of race, ethnicity, and social determinants of health on diabetes outcomes. Am. J. Med. Sci. 351, 366–373 (2016)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening
Authors
Rebecca L. Thomas
Thomas G. Winfield
Matthew Prettyjohns
Frank D. Dunstan
Wai-Yee Cheung
Philippa M. Anderson
Rajesh Peter
Stephen D. Luzio
David R. Owens
Publication date
01-09-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Type 2 Diabetes
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 7/2020
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01191-y

Other articles of this Issue 7/2020

The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2020 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods

Original Paper

Quantifying the economic impact of caregiving for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in Spain

Editorial

Once we have it, will we use it? A European survey on willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19

Original Paper

Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments

Original Paper

Modeling Personalized Adjuvant TreaTment in EaRly stage coloN cancer (PATTERN)

Original Paper

Patterns of care and cost profiles of women with breast cancer in Italy: EPICOST study based on real world data