The growing use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to evaluate specific interventions is dominated by studies of prospective new interventions compared with current practice. This type of analysis does not explicitly take a sectoral perspective in which the costs and effectiveness of all possible interventions are compared, in order to select the mix that maximizes health for a given set of resource constraints. WHO guidelines on generalized CEA propose the application of CEA to a wide range of interventions to provide general information on the relative costs and health benefits of different interventions in the absence of various highly local decision constraints. This general approach will contribute to judgements on whether interventions are highly cost-effective, highly cost-ineffective, or something in between. Generalized CEAs require the evaluation of a set of interventions with respect to the counterfactual of the null set of the related interventions, i.e. the natural history of disease. Such general perceptions of relative cost-effectiveness, which do not pertain to any specific decision-maker, can be a useful reference point for evaluating the directions for enhancing allocative efficiency in a variety of settings. The proposed framework allows the identification of current allocative inefficiencies as well as opportunities presented by new interventions.

/pdf/development-of-who-guidelines-on-generalized-cost-3z2xlwg9rd.pdf

Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis.

Aims/hypothesis. Metabolic control worsens progressively in Type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus despite intensified pharmacological treatment and lifestyle intervention, when these are implemented on a one-to-one basis. We compared traditional individual diabetes care with a model in which routine follow-up is managed by interactive group visits while individual consultations are reserved for emerging medical problems and yearly checks for complications.

/pdf/lifestyle-intervention-by-group-care-prevents-deterioration-24gcr2rscl.pdf

Lifestyle intervention by group care prevents deterioration of Type II diabetes: a 4-year randomized controlled clinical trial.

This paper systematically reviews the published literature on the economic evidence of diabetic retinopathy screening. Twenty-nine electronic databases were searched for studies published between 1998 and 2008. Internet searches were carried out and reference lists of key studies were hand searched for relevant articles. The key search terms used were 'diabetic retinopathy', 'screening', 'economic' and 'cost'. The search identified 416 papers of which 21 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, comprising nine cost-effectiveness studies, one cost analysis, one cost-minimization analysis, four cost-utility analyses and six reviews. Eleven of the included studies used economic modelling techniques and/or computer simulation to assess screening strategies. To date, the economic evaluation literature on diabetic retinopathy screening has focused on four key questions: the overall cost-effectiveness of ophthalmic care; the cost-effectiveness of systematic vs. opportunistic screening; how screening should be organized and delivered; and how often people should be screened. Systematic screening for diabetic retinopathy is cost-effective in terms of sight years preserved compared with no screening. Digital photography with telemedicine links has the potential to deliver cost-effective, accessible screening to rural, remote and hard-to-reach populations. Variation in compliance rates, age of onset of diabetes, glycaemic control and screening sensitivities influence the cost-effectiveness of screening programmes and are important sources of uncertainty in relation to the issue of optimal screening intervals. There is controversy in relation to the economic evidence on optimal screening intervals. Further research is needed to address the issue of optimal screening interval, the opportunities for targeted screening to reflect relative risk and the effect of different screening intervals on attendance or compliance by patients.

Diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review of the economic evidence

Objectives: To provide a comprehensive source document on previously published cost data for diabetic complications in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain for use in a peer-reviewed, validated diabetes model.Methods: A search for published cost of diabetes complications data was performed in peer-reviewed journals listed in PubMed and health economic conference proceedings from 1994 to March 2005. Where country specific data were not available, we referred to government websites and local cost experts. All costs were inflated to 2003 Euros (€). Major complication costs are presented.Results: First year costs of non-fatal myocardial infarction varied between €19 277 in Spain and €12 292 in Australia. In subsequent years of treatment, this range was €1226 (France) to €203 (Australia). Angina costs were similar across all four countries: €1716 in Australia; €2218 in Canada; €2613 in France; €3342 in Germany; €2297 in Italy; and €2207 in Spain. Event costs of non-fatal stroke were high...

Review of the cost of diabetes complications in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

OBJECTIVE To compare the diagnostic properties of a nonmydriatic 200° ultra-widefield scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) versus mydriatic Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) 7-field photography for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A consecutive series of 212 eyes of 141 patients with different levels of DR were examined. Grading of DR and clinically significant macular edema (CSME) from mydriatic ETDRS 7-field stereo photography was compared with grading obtained by Optomap Panoramic 200 SLO images. All SLO scans were performed through an undilated pupil, and no additional clinical information was used for evaluation of all images by the two independent, masked, expert graders. RESULTS Twenty-two eyes from ETDRS 7-field photography and 12 eyes from Optomap were not gradable by at least one grader because of poor image quality. A total of 144 eyes were analyzed regarding DR level and 155 eyes regarding CSME. For ETDRS 7-field photography, 22 eyes (18 for grader 2) had no or mild DR (ETDRS levels ≤ 20) and 117 eyes (111 for grader 2) had no CSME. A highly substantial agreement between both Optomap DR and CSME grading and ETDRS 7-field photography existed with κ = 0.79 for DR and 0.73 for CSME for grader 1, and κ = 0.77 (DR) and 0.77 (CSME) for grader 2. CONCLUSIONS Determination of CSME and grading of DR level from Optomap Panoramic 200 nonmydriatic images show a positive correlation with mydriatic ETDRS 7-field stereo photography. Both techniques are of sufficient quality to assess DR and CSME. Optomap Panoramic 200 images cover a larger retinal area and therefore may offer additional diagnostic properties.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/35/12/2459.full.pdf

Assessment of Diabetic Retinopathy Using Nonmydriatic Ultra-Widefield Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy (Optomap) Compared With ETDRS 7-Field Stereo Photography

A Minonne

Papers

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of three approaches to screening for and treating sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy.

Incidence of newly-diagnosed retinopathy during screening for eye complications of diabetes