Literature DB >> 8554212

Cost-effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic retinopathy.

J C Javitt1, L P Aiello.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine, from the health insurer's perspective, the cost of preventing vision loss in patients with diabetes mellitus through ophthalmologic screening and treatment and to calculate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions as compared with that of other medical interventions.
DESIGN: Computer modeling, incorporating data from population-based epidemiologic studies and multicenter clinical trials. Monte Carlo simulation was used, combined with sensitivity analysis and present value analysis of cost savings.
RESULTS: Screening and treatment of eye disease in patients with diabetes mellitus costs $3190 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. This average cost is a weighted average (based on prevalence disease) of the cost-effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic eye disease in those with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus ($1996 per QALY), those with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) who use insulin for glycemic control ($2933 per QALY), and those with NIDDM who do not use insulin for glycemic control ($3530 per QALY).
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates that prevention programs aimed at improving eye care for diabetic persons not only result in substantial federal budgetary savings but are highly cost-effective health investments for society. Ophthalmologic screening for diabetic persons is more cost-effective than many routinely provided health interventions. Because diabetic eye disease is the leading cause of new cases of blindness among working-age Americans, these results support the widespread use of screening and treatment for diabetic eye disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8554212     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-124-1_part_2-199601011-00017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  67 in total

1.  Prevalence of self-rated visual impairment among adults with diabetes.

Authors:  J B Saaddine; K M Narayan; M M Engelgau; R E Aubert; R Klein; G L Beckles
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Costs of diabetes. A methodological analysis of the literature.

Authors:  E Pagano; M Brunetti; F Tediosi; L Garattini
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Complications of diabetes: screening for retinopathy and management of foot ulcers.

Authors:  A Melville; R Richardson; A McIntosh; C O'Keeffe; J Mason; J Peters; A Hutchinson
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-06

Review 4.  Understanding cost effectiveness: a detailed review.

Authors:  A F Smith; G C Brown
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  A short term cost-effectiveness model for oral antidiabetic medicines in Europe.

Authors:  S C Hood; L Annemans; M Rutten-van Mölken
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  What is the cost of blindness?

Authors:  C Meads; C Hyde
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 7.  Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for diabetic macular edema.

Authors:  David S Boyer; J Jill Hopkins; Jonathan Sorof; Jason S Ehrlich
Journal:  Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.565

8.  The accuracy of digital-video retinal imaging to screen for diabetic retinopathy: an analysis of two digital-video retinal imaging systems using standard stereoscopic seven-field photography and dilated clinical examination as reference standards.

Authors:  Mary Gilbert Lawrence
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2004

9.  Diabetic Retinopathy: Focus on Minority Populations.

Authors:  Arpine Barsegian; Boleslav Kotlyar; Justin Lee; Moro O Salifu; Samy I McFarlane
Journal:  Int J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2017-11-11

10.  Screening for diabetic retinopathy in James Bay, Ontario: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  David Maberley; Hugh Walker; Anita Koushik; Alan Cruess
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-01-21       Impact factor: 8.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.