Cargando…

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

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-utili...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomas, Rebecca L., Winfield, Thomas G., Prettyjohns, Matthew, Dunstan, Frank D., Cheung, Wai-Yee, Anderson, Philippa M., Peter, Rajesh, Luzio, Stephen D., Owens, David R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32385543
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01191-y
_version_ 1783570196633485312
author Thomas, Rebecca L.
Winfield, Thomas G.
Prettyjohns, Matthew
Dunstan, Frank D.
Cheung, Wai-Yee
Anderson, Philippa M.
Peter, Rajesh
Luzio, Stephen D.
Owens, David R.
author_facet Thomas, Rebecca L.
Winfield, Thomas G.
Prettyjohns, Matthew
Dunstan, Frank D.
Cheung, Wai-Yee
Anderson, Philippa M.
Peter, Rajesh
Luzio, Stephen D.
Owens, David R.
author_sort Thomas, Rebecca L.
collection PubMed
description 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 HbA(1c) was 7.5% for those with T2DM and 8.7% for T1DM. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Extending screening to biennial based on HbA(1c), being the strongest predictor of progression of DR, at three levels of HbA(1c) 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 HbA(1c) and duration of diabetes. However, the uncertainty around the DCER indicates that annual screening should be maintained for those with T1DM especially when the HbA(1c) exceeds 80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and duration of diabetes is greater than 12 years. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10198-020-01191-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7423794
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74237942020-08-18 Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening Thomas, Rebecca L. Winfield, Thomas G. Prettyjohns, Matthew Dunstan, Frank D. Cheung, Wai-Yee Anderson, Philippa M. Peter, Rajesh Luzio, Stephen D. Owens, David R. Eur J Health Econ Original Paper 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 HbA(1c) was 7.5% for those with T2DM and 8.7% for T1DM. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Extending screening to biennial based on HbA(1c), being the strongest predictor of progression of DR, at three levels of HbA(1c) 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 HbA(1c) and duration of diabetes. However, the uncertainty around the DCER indicates that annual screening should be maintained for those with T1DM especially when the HbA(1c) exceeds 80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and duration of diabetes is greater than 12 years. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10198-020-01191-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-05-08 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7423794/ /pubmed/32385543 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01191-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Thomas, Rebecca L.
Winfield, Thomas G.
Prettyjohns, Matthew
Dunstan, Frank D.
Cheung, Wai-Yee
Anderson, Philippa M.
Peter, Rajesh
Luzio, Stephen D.
Owens, David R.
Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening
title Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening
title_full Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening
title_short Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening
title_sort cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32385543
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01191-y
work_keys_str_mv AT thomasrebeccal costeffectivenessofbiennialscreeningfordiabetesrelatedretinopathyinpeoplewithtype1andtype2diabetescomparedtoannualscreening
AT winfieldthomasg costeffectivenessofbiennialscreeningfordiabetesrelatedretinopathyinpeoplewithtype1andtype2diabetescomparedtoannualscreening
AT prettyjohnsmatthew costeffectivenessofbiennialscreeningfordiabetesrelatedretinopathyinpeoplewithtype1andtype2diabetescomparedtoannualscreening
AT dunstanfrankd costeffectivenessofbiennialscreeningfordiabetesrelatedretinopathyinpeoplewithtype1andtype2diabetescomparedtoannualscreening
AT cheungwaiyee costeffectivenessofbiennialscreeningfordiabetesrelatedretinopathyinpeoplewithtype1andtype2diabetescomparedtoannualscreening
AT andersonphilippam costeffectivenessofbiennialscreeningfordiabetesrelatedretinopathyinpeoplewithtype1andtype2diabetescomparedtoannualscreening
AT peterrajesh costeffectivenessofbiennialscreeningfordiabetesrelatedretinopathyinpeoplewithtype1andtype2diabetescomparedtoannualscreening
AT luziostephend costeffectivenessofbiennialscreeningfordiabetesrelatedretinopathyinpeoplewithtype1andtype2diabetescomparedtoannualscreening
AT owensdavidr costeffectivenessofbiennialscreeningfordiabetesrelatedretinopathyinpeoplewithtype1andtype2diabetescomparedtoannualscreening