Cost of diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema in a population, an eight year follow up.

BACKGROUND: Prospective, population-based study of an 8-year follow up. To determine the direct cost of diabetic retinopathy [DR], evaluating our screening programme and the cost of treating DR, focusing on diabetic macular oedema [DMO] after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF] treatment. METHODS: A total of 15,396 diabetes mellitus [DM] patients were studied. We determined the cost-effectiveness of our screening programme against an annual programme by applying the Markov simulation model. We also compared the cost-effectiveness of anti-VEGF treatment to laser treatment for screened patients with DMO. RESULTS: The cost of our 2.5-year screening programme was as follows: per patient with any-DR, €482.85 ± 35.14; per sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy [STDR] patient, €1528.26 ± 114.94; and €1826.98 ± 108.26 per DMO patient. Comparatively, an annual screening programme would result in increases as follows: 0.77 in QALY per patient with any-DR and 0.6 and 0.44 per patient with STDR or DMO, respectively, with an incremental cost-effective ratio [ICER] of €1096.88 for any-DR, €4571.2 for STDR and €7443.28 per DMO patient. Regarding diagnosis and treatment, the mean annual total cost per patient with DMO was €777.09 ± 49.45 for the laser treated group and €7153.62 ± 212.15 for the anti-VEGF group, with a QALY gain of 0.21, the yearly mean cost was €7153.62 ± 212.15 per patient, and the ICER was €30,361. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for diabetic retinopathy every 2.5 years is cost-effective, but should be adjusted to a patient's personal risk factors. Treatment with anti-VEGF for DMO has increased costs, but the cost-utility increases to 0.21 QALY per patient.

Real-world outcomes of a clinical decision support system for diabetic retinopathy in Spain.

Objective: The aim of present study was to evaluate our clinical decision support system (CDSS) for predicting risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR). We selected randomly a real population of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were attending our screening programme. Methods and analysis: The sample size was 602 patients with T2DM randomly selected from those who attended the DR screening programme. The algorithm developed uses nine risk factors: current age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration and treatment of diabetes mellitus (DM), arterial hypertension, Glicated hemoglobine (HbA1c), urine-albumin ratio and glomerular filtration. Results: The mean current age of 67.03±10.91, and 272 were male (53.2%), and DM duration was 10.12±6.4 years, 222 had DR (35.8%). The CDSS was employed for 1 year. The prediction algorithm that the CDSS uses included nine risk factors: current age, sex, BMI, DM duration and treatment, arterial hypertension, HbA1c, urine-albumin ratio and glomerular filtration. The area under the curve (AUC) for predicting the presence of any DR achieved a value of 0.9884, the sensitivity of 98.21%, specificity of 99.21%, positive predictive value of 98.65%, negative predictive value of 98.95%, α error of 0.0079 and ß error of 0.0179. Conclusion: Our CDSS for predicting DR was successful when applied to a real population.

Glomerular Filtration Rate and/or Ratio of Urine Albumin to Creatinine as Markers for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Ten-Year Follow-Up Study.

AIMS: To determine the relationship between diabetic nephropathy and diabetic retinopathy on a population of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. METHODS: A prospective ten-year follow-up population-based study. We determined differences between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration equation and urine albumin to creatinine ratio. RESULTS: Annual incidence of any-DR was 8.21 ± 0.60% (7.06%-8.92%), sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) was 2.65 ± 0.14% (2.48%-2.88%), and diabetic macular edema (DME) was 2.21 ± 0.18% (2%-2.49%). Renal study results were as follows: UACR > 30 mg/g had an annual incidence of 7.02 ± 0.05% (6.97%-7.09%), eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 incidence was 5.89 ± 0.12% (5.70%-6.13%). Cox's proportional regression analysis of DR incidence shows that renal function studied by eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 was less significant (p = 0.04, HR 1.223, 1.098-1.201) than UACR ≥ 300 mg/g (p < 0.001, HR 1.485, 1.103-1.548). The study of STDR shows that eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 was significant (p = 0.02, HR 1.890, 1.267-2.820), UACR ≥ 300 mg/g (p < 0.001, HR 2.448, 1.595-3.757), and DME shows that eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 was significant (p = 0.02, HR 1.920, 1.287-2.864) and UACR ≥ 300 mg/g (p < 0.001, HR 2.432, 1.584-3.732). CONCLUSIONS: The UACR has a better association with diabetic retinopathy than the eGFR, although both are important risk factors for diabetic retinopathy.

Differences in incidence of diabetic retinopathy between type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: a nine-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To determine the incidence of any diabetic retinopathy (any-DR), sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) and diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and their risk factors in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) over a screening programme. METHODS: Nine-year follow-up, prospective population-based study of 366 patients with T1DM and 15 030 with T2DM. Epidemiological risk factors were as follows: current age, age at DM diagnosis, sex, type of DM, duration of DM, arterial hypertension, levels of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), triglycerides, cholesterol fractions, serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR). RESULTS: Sum incidence of any-DR was 47.26% with annual incidence 15.16±2.19% in T1DM, and 26.49% with annual incidence 8.13% in T2DM. Sum incidence of STDR was 18.03% with annual incidence 5.77±1.21% in T1DM, and 7.59% with annual incidence 2.64±0.15% in T2DM. Sum incidence of DMO was 8.46% with annual incidence 2.68±038% in patients with T1DM and 6.36% with annual incidence 2.19±0.18% in T2DM. Cox's survival analysis showed that current age and age at diagnosis were risk factors at p<0.001, as high HbA1c levels at p<0.001, LDL cholesterol was significant at p<0.001, eGFR was significant at p<0.001 and UACR at p=0.017. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of any-DR and STDR was higher in patients with T1DM than those with T2DM. Also, the 47.26% sum incidence of any-DR in patients with T1DM was higher than in a previous study (35.9%), which can be linked to poor metabolic control of DM. Our results suggest that physicians should be encouraged to pay greater attention to treatment protocols for T1DM in patients.

Changes observed in diabetic retinopathy: eight-year follow-up of a Spanish population.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To determine the changes in the incidence of diabetic retinopathy (DR), diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and their risk factors in a population-based study of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) referred to our 16 Primary Health Care Areas (HCAs). METHODS: Prospective population-based study of a total of 15 396 Caucasian patients with DM, who represent 86.53% of the total patients with DM in our HCAs, were studied over an 8-year follow-up period. All patients were screened with a mean follow-up of 3.18±1.11 times for each patient over the 8 years. RESULTS: The yearly mean value of any DR was 8.37±2.19% (8.09%-8.99%); of advanced DR yearly mean value of 0.46±0.22% (0.03-0.78); and of DMO a yearly mean value of 2.19±0.18% (2%-2.49%). A clear increase was observed in the last 3 years, any DR increased from 8.09% in 2007 to 8.99% in 2014, and DMO from 2% in 2007 to 2.49% in 2014. These increases were more evident in some age groups. For patients with any DR aged 41-50 and 51-60 and for patients with advanced DR aged 41-50, 51-60 and 61-70, the increase was more marked, related to an increase in HbA1c values or to patients treated with insulin. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in the incidence of DR and DMO was observed, especially in the younger patients aged between 31 and 70 years. This is linked to bad metabolic control of DM. Our results suggest a greater number of ocular complications in the near future, such as neovascular glaucoma, if these current findings are not addressed.