S Vijan1, T P Hofer, R A Hayward. 1. Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Quality Enhancement Research Initiative and the Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48113-0170, USA. svijan@umich.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Annual eye screening for patients with diabetes mellitus is frequently proposed as a measure of quality of care. However, the benefit of annual vs less frequent screening intervals has not been well evaluated, especially for low-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine the marginal cost-effectiveness of various screening intervals for eye disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, stratified by age and level of glycemic control. DESIGN: Markov cost-effectiveness model. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical patients based on the US population of diabetic patients older than 40 years from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient time spent blind, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs of annual vs less frequent screening compared by age and level of hemoglobin A1c. RESULTS: Retinal screening in patients with type 2 diabetes is an effective intervention; however, the risk reduction varies dramatically by age and level of glycemic control. On average, a high-risk patient who is aged 45 years and has a hemoglobin A1c level of 11% gains 21 days of sight when screened annually as opposed to every third year, while a low-risk patient who is aged 65 years and has a hemoglobin A1c level of 7% gains an average of 3 days of sight. The marginal cost-effectiveness of screening annually vs every other year also varies; patients in the high-risk group cost an additional $40530 per QALY gained, while those in the low-risk group cost an additional $211570 per QALY gained. In the US population, retinal screening annually vs every other year for patients with type 2 diabetes costs $107510 per QALY gained, while screening every other year vs every third year costs $49760 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Annual retinal screening for all patients with type 2 diabetes without previously detected retinopathy may not be warranted on the basis of cost-effectiveness, and tailoring recommendations to individual circumstances may be preferable. Organizations evaluating quality of care should consider costs and benefits carefully before setting universal standards.
CONTEXT: Annual eye screening for patients with diabetes mellitus is frequently proposed as a measure of quality of care. However, the benefit of annual vs less frequent screening intervals has not been well evaluated, especially for low-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine the marginal cost-effectiveness of various screening intervals for eye disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, stratified by age and level of glycemic control. DESIGN: Markov cost-effectiveness model. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical patients based on the US population of diabeticpatients older than 40 years from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient time spent blind, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs of annual vs less frequent screening compared by age and level of hemoglobin A1c. RESULTS: Retinal screening in patients with type 2 diabetes is an effective intervention; however, the risk reduction varies dramatically by age and level of glycemic control. On average, a high-risk patient who is aged 45 years and has a hemoglobin A1c level of 11% gains 21 days of sight when screened annually as opposed to every third year, while a low-risk patient who is aged 65 years and has a hemoglobin A1c level of 7% gains an average of 3 days of sight. The marginal cost-effectiveness of screening annually vs every other year also varies; patients in the high-risk group cost an additional $40530 per QALY gained, while those in the low-risk group cost an additional $211570 per QALY gained. In the US population, retinal screening annually vs every other year for patients with type 2 diabetes costs $107510 per QALY gained, while screening every other year vs every third year costs $49760 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Annual retinal screening for all patients with type 2 diabetes without previously detected retinopathy may not be warranted on the basis of cost-effectiveness, and tailoring recommendations to individual circumstances may be preferable. Organizations evaluating quality of care should consider costs and benefits carefully before setting universal standards.
Authors: Gary C Brown; Melissa M Brown; Sanjay Sharma; Heidi Brown; Lindsay Smithen; David B Leeser; George Beauchamp Journal: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc Date: 2004
Authors: David B Rein; John S Wittenborn; Xinzhi Zhang; Benjamin A Allaire; Michael S Song; Ronald Klein; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Edward W Gregg; Andrew J Karter; Robert B Gerzoff; Monika Safford; Arleen F Brown; Chien-Wen Tseng; Beth Waitzfielder; William H Herman; Carol M Mangione; Joseph V Selby; Theodore J Thompson; R Adams Dudley Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.983