{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Curran DM"],"funding":["NIGMS NIH HHS"],"pagination":["1300-1308"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9508450"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["28(9)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The use of telehealth screening (TS) for diabetic retinopathy (DR) consists of fundus photography in a primary care setting with remote interpretation of images. TS for DR is known to increase screening utilization and reduce vision loss compared with standard in-person conventional diabetic retinal exam (CDRE). Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injections have become standard of care for the treatment of DR, but they are expensive. We investigated whether TS for DR is cost-effective when DR management includes intravitreal injections using national data. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> We compared cost and effectiveness of TS and CDRE using decision-tree analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulation. We considered the disability weight (DW) of vision impairment and 1-year direct medical costs of managing patients based on Medicare allowable rates and clinical trial data. Primary outcomes include incremental costs and incremental effectiveness. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The average annual direct cost of eye care was $196 per person for TS and $275 for CDRE. On average, TS saves $78 (28%) compared with CDRE and was cost saving in 88.9% of simulations. The average DW outcome was equivalent in both groups. <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> Although this study was limited by a 1-year time horizon, it provides support that TS for DR can reduce costs of DR management despite expensive treatment with anti-VEGF agents. TS for DR is equally effective as CDRE at preserving vision. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Annual TS for DR is cost saving and equally effective compared with CDRE given a 1-year time horizon."],"journal":["Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association"],"pubmed_title":["Telehealth Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy: Economic Modeling Reveals Cost Savings."],"pmcid":["PMC9508450"],"funding_grant_id":["P20 GM103644"],"pubmed_authors":["Curran DM","Withers N","Brady CJ","Shepard DS","Kim BY"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Telehealth Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy: Economic Modeling Reveals Cost Savings.","description":"<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The use of telehealth screening (TS) for diabetic retinopathy (DR) consists of fundus photography in a primary care setting with remote interpretation of images. TS for DR is known to increase screening utilization and reduce vision loss compared with standard in-person conventional diabetic retinal exam (CDRE). Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor intravitreal injections have become standard of care for the treatment of DR, but they are expensive. We investigated whether TS for DR is cost-effective when DR management includes intravitreal injections using national data. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> We compared cost and effectiveness of TS and CDRE using decision-tree analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulation. We considered the disability weight (DW) of vision impairment and 1-year direct medical costs of managing patients based on Medicare allowable rates and clinical trial data. Primary outcomes include incremental costs and incremental effectiveness. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The average annual direct cost of eye care was $196 per person for TS and $275 for CDRE. On average, TS saves $78 (28%) compared with CDRE and was cost saving in 88.9% of simulations. The average DW outcome was equivalent in both groups. <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> Although this study was limited by a 1-year time horizon, it provides support that TS for DR can reduce costs of DR management despite expensive treatment with anti-VEGF agents. TS for DR is equally effective as CDRE at preserving vision. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Annual TS for DR is cost saving and equally effective compared with CDRE given a 1-year time horizon.","dates":{"release":"2022-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2022 Sep","modification":"2025-04-04T20:04:41.617Z","creation":"2025-04-04T20:04:41.617Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC9508450","cross_references":{"pubmed":["35073213"],"doi":["10.1089/tmj.2021.0352"]}}