Gordon Prescott1, Peter Sharp2, Keith Goatman2, Graham Scotland1, Alan Fleming2, Sam Philip3, Roger Staff4, Cynthia Santiago5, Shyamanga Borooah6, Deborah Broadbent7, Victor Chong8, Paul Dodson9, Simon Harding7, Graham Leese10, Roly Megaw6, Caroline Styles11, Ken Swa12, Helen Wharton13, John Olson14. 1. Division of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 2. College of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 3. Grampian Diabetes Research Unit, Diabetes Centre, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK. 4. Medical Physics, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK. 5. Eye Out-patient Department, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK. 6. Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion, Edinburgh, UK. 7. Liverpool Diabetes Eye Centre, St. Paul's Eye Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK Department of Eye and Vision Science, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 8. Department of Ophthalmology, Oxford Eye Hospital, Oxford, UK. 9. Heartlands Hospital & Aston University, Birmingham, UK. 10. Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK. 11. Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline, UK. 12. National Services Division, NHS National Services, Edinburgh, UK. 13. Birmingham and Black Country Diabetic Eye Screening Programme, Diabetes and Endocrinology Unit, Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, UK. 14. Grampian Retinal Screening Programme, Aberdeen, UK.
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. 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.
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. 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.
Authors: Francisco J Pasquel; Andrew M Hendrick; Martha Ryan; Emily Cason; Mohammed K Ali; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-12-29
Authors: James Kang Hao Goh; Carol Y Cheung; Shaun Sebastian Sim; Pok Chien Tan; Gavin Siew Wei Tan; Tien Yin Wong Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-02-01
Authors: Ou Tan; Aiyin Chen; Yan Li; Steven Bailey; Thomas S Hwang; Andreas K Lauer; Michael F Chiang; David Huang Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2021-09-15
Authors: Ru-Ik Chee; Dana Darwish; Alvaro Fernandez-Vega; Samir Patel; Karyn Jonas; Susan Ostmo; J Peter Campbell; Michael F Chiang; Rv Paul Chan Journal: Curr Ophthalmol Rep Date: 2018-01-29
Authors: Yuchen Xie; Dinesh V Gunasekeran; Konstantinos Balaskas; Pearse A Keane; Dawn A Sim; Lucas M Bachmann; Carl Macrae; Daniel S W Ting Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Paolo Lanzetta; Valentina Sarao; Peter H Scanlon; Jane Barratt; Massimo Porta; Francesco Bandello; Anat Loewenstein Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 4.280