OBJECTIVE: To assess from the perspectives of a government delivery system and patients, the cost-effectiveness of the 45-degrees retinal camera compared to the standard ophthalmologist's exam and an ophthalmic exam by a physician's assistant or nurse practitioner technician, for detecting nonproliferative and proliferative diabetic retinopathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Comparison of 45-degrees fundus photographs with and without pharmacological pupil dilation taken by technicians and interpreted by experts, direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy by ophthalmologists, and direct ophthalmoscopy by technicians with seven-field stereoscopic fundus photography (reference standard). Costs were estimated from market prices and actual resource use. The study included 352 patients attending outpatient diabetes and general-medicine clinics at VA and DOD facilities. RESULTS: Medical system costs per true positive were: 45-degrees photos with dilation, $295; 45-degrees photos without dilation, $378; ophthalmologist, $390; and technician, $794. Patient costs per true positive were: 45-degrees photos with dilation, $139; 45-degrees photos without dilation, $171; ophthalmologist, $306; and technician, $1009. Cost-effectiveness is sensitive to program size due to high fixed cost of the camera methods but not to prevalence. Cost-effectiveness of the technician exam is strongly affected by its sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Primary-care screening with retinal photographs through pharmacologically dilated pupils for diabetic retinopathy is an appropriate and cost-effective alternative to screening by an ophthalmologist in this setting. Ophthalmologists are scarce, primary-care physicians are extremely busy, and large clinics allow fixed equipment costs to be spread across many patients.
OBJECTIVE: To assess from the perspectives of a government delivery system and patients, the cost-effectiveness of the 45-degrees retinal camera compared to the standard ophthalmologist's exam and an ophthalmic exam by a physician's assistant or nurse practitioner technician, for detecting nonproliferative and proliferative diabetic retinopathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Comparison of 45-degrees fundus photographs with and without pharmacological pupil dilation taken by technicians and interpreted by experts, direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy by ophthalmologists, and direct ophthalmoscopy by technicians with seven-field stereoscopic fundus photography (reference standard). Costs were estimated from market prices and actual resource use. The study included 352 patients attending outpatientdiabetes and general-medicine clinics at VA and DOD facilities. RESULTS: Medical system costs per true positive were: 45-degrees photos with dilation, $295; 45-degrees photos without dilation, $378; ophthalmologist, $390; and technician, $794. Patient costs per true positive were: 45-degrees photos with dilation, $139; 45-degrees photos without dilation, $171; ophthalmologist, $306; and technician, $1009. Cost-effectiveness is sensitive to program size due to high fixed cost of the camera methods but not to prevalence. Cost-effectiveness of the technician exam is strongly affected by its sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Primary-care screening with retinal photographs through pharmacologically dilated pupils for diabetic retinopathy is an appropriate and cost-effective alternative to screening by an ophthalmologist in this setting. Ophthalmologists are scarce, primary-care physicians are extremely busy, and large clinics allow fixed equipment costs to be spread across many patients.
Authors: David R Lairson; Yu-Chia Chang; Judith L Bettencourt; Sally W Vernon; Anthony Greisinger Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Emanuele Trucco; Alfredo Ruggeri; Thomas Karnowski; Luca Giancardo; Edward Chaum; Jean Pierre Hubschman; Bashir Al-Diri; Carol Y Cheung; Damon Wong; Michael Abràmoff; Gilbert Lim; Dinesh Kumar; Philippe Burlina; Neil M Bressler; Herbert F Jelinek; Fabrice Meriaudeau; Gwénolé Quellec; Tom Macgillivray; Bal Dhillon Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 4.799