A health economic pilot study comparing two diabetic retinopathy screening strategies.

To compare two screening strategies for diabetic retinopathy (DR), and to determine the health-economic impact of including optical coherence tomography (OCT) in a regular DR screening. This cross-sectional study included a cohort of patients (≥ 18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D or T2D) from a pilot DR screening program at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. A combined screening strategy where OCT was performed in addition to fundus photography for all patients, was conducted on this cohort and compared to our existing sequential screening strategy. In the sequential screening strategy, OCT was performed on a separate day only if fundus photography indicated diabetic macular edema (DME). The presence of diabetic maculopathy on fundus photography and DME on OCT was determined by two medical retina specialists. Based on the prevalence rate of diabetic maculopathy and DME from the pilot, we determined the health-economic impact of the two screening strategies. The study included 180 eyes of 90 patients. Twenty-seven eyes of 18 patients had diabetic maculopathy, and of these, 7 eyes of 6 patients revealed DME on OCT. When diabetic maculopathy was absent on fundus photographs, OCT could not reveal DME. Accordingly, 18 patients (20%) with diabetic maculopathy would have needed an additional examination with OCT in the sequential screening strategy, 6 (33%) of whom would have had DME on OCT. In an extended healthcare perspective analysis, the cost of the sequential screening strategy was higher than the cost of the combined screening strategy. There was a weak association between diabetic maculopathy on fundus photography and DME on OCT. The health economic analysis suggests that including OCT as a standard test in DR screening could potentially be cost-saving.

A Pilot Study of Implementing Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in the Oslo Region, Norway: Baseline Results.

PURPOSE: to gain insight into the baseline parameters of a population with diabetes mellitus (DM) included in a pilot diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening program at Oslo University Hospital (OUH), Norway. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of a cohort of adult patients (≥18 years) with type 1 or 2 DM (T1D and T2D). We measured the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), intraocular pressure (IOP), height and weight. We also collected HbA1c, total serum cholesterol and urine-albumin, -creatinine and -albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), as well as socio-demographic parameters, medications and previous screening history. We obtained color fundus photographs, which were graded by two experienced ophthalmologists according to the International Clinical Disease Severity Scale for DR. RESULTS: The study included 180 eyes of 90 patients: 12 patients (13.3%) had T1D and 78 (86.7%) had T2D. In the T1D group, 5 patients (41.7%) had no DR, and 7 (58.3%) had some degree of DR. In the T2D group, 60 patients (76.9%) had no DR, and 18 (23.1%) had some degree of DR. None of the patients had proliferative DR. Of the 43 patients not newly diagnosed (time of diagnosis > 5 years for T1D and >1 years for T2D), 37.5% of the T1D patients and 5.7% of the T2D patients had previously undergone regular screening. Univariate analyses found for the whole cohort significant associations between DR and age, HbA1c, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, body mass index (BMI) and duration of DM. For the T2D group alone, there were significant associations between DR and HbA1c, BMI, urine creatinine, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio and duration of DM. The analysis also showed three times higher odds for DR in the T1D group than the T2D group. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the need for implementing a systematic DR screening program in the Oslo region, Norway, to better reach out to patients with DM and improve their screening adherence. Timely and proper treatment can prevent or mitigate vision loss and improve the prognosis. A considerable number of patients were referred from general practitioners for not being followed by an ophthalmologist.Among patients not newly diagnosed with DM, 62.8% had never had an eye exam, and the duration of DM for these patients was up to 18 years (median: 8 years).