ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Diabetic eye complications are the leading cause of visual loss among working-aged people. Pharmacy-based teleophthalmology has emerged as a possible alternative to in-person examination that may facilitate compliance with evidence-based recommendations and reduce barriers to specialized eye care. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of mobile teleophthalmology screening compared with in-person examination (primary care) for the diabetic population residing in semiurban areas of southwestern Ontario. METHODS: A decision tree was constructed to compare in-person examination (comparator program) versus pharmacy-based teleophthalmology (intervention program). The economic model was designed to identify patients with more than minimal diabetic retinopathy, manifested by at least 1 microaneurysm at examination (modified Airlie House classification grade of ≥ 20). Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case detected (true-positive result) and cost per case correctly diagnosed (including true-positive and true-negative results). RESULTS: The cost per case detected was $510 with in-person examination and $478 with teleophthalmology, and the cost per case correctly diagnosed was $107 and $102 respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $314 per additional case detected and $73 per additional case correctly diagnosed. Use of pharmacologic dilation and health care specialists' fees were the most important cost drivers. INTERPRETATION: The study showed that a compound teleophthalmology program in a semiurban community would be more effective but more costly than in-person examination. The findings raise the question of whether the benefits of pharmacy-based teleophthalmology in semiurban areas, where in-person examination is still available, are equivalent to those observed in remote communities. Further study is needed to investigate the impact of this program on the prevention of severe vision loss and quality of life in a semiurban setting.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of our investigation was to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of the present world literature comparing the major surgical outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) to lamellar procedures. Our goal is that clinicians, eye bank administrators, and health policy makers will be able to utilize this study in implementing decisions in regards to corneal transplantation. METHODS: Pooled measures of association were with odds ratios and because of study heterogeneity, the pooled effects were assumed to follow a random effects model (DerSimonian-Laird). The comparisons were between 1) PKP's and all lamellar procedures (anterior AND posterior) and then 2) between PKP's and all anterior lamellar procedures and 3) PKP and all posterior lamellar procedures. RESULTS: For PKP vs anterior lamellar procedures, the pooled odds ratio for rejection of PKP over lamellar keratoplasty (LK) was 3.56 (95% CI: 1.76-7.20) and for outright failure, the pooled odds ratio of PKP failure vs LK was 2.85 (95% CI: 0.84-9.66). For posterior lamellar procedures, the pooled odds ratio for rejection of PKP over LK was 1.52 (95% CI: 1.00-2.32). The pooled odds ratio for outright failure of PKP over posterior lamellar procedures was 2.09 (95% CI: 0.57-7.59). The follow up time was significantly longer for full transplants than for lamellar procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For both anterior and posterior lamellar procedures, the odds ratios comparing rejection of full transplants to lamellar procedures (both anterior and posterior individually) were significantly higher in the PKP group. For outright failure, the PKP group also had a higher risk of failure than the lamellar groups but this was not statistically significant in either instance (anterior or posterior). Some of the clinical differences benefitting lamellar procedures may at least be partly explained by follow up time differences between groups and this needs to be accounted for more rigorously in future studies.
