The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR randomised controlled trial

Safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR randomised controlled trial
Safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR randomised controlled trial
Background: varying diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening intervals, informed by personal risk-levels, empowers people with diabetes (PWD), and offers reallocation of resources to high risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. Safety data on extending intervals is minimal. We evaluated the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of individualised risk-based variable-interval population screening compared to usual care, with design input from PWD.

Methods: two-arm, parallel assignment, equivalence randomised controlled trial (minimum 2 year follow-up) in PWD aged ≥12 years registered with one English screening programme. Randomisation was 1:1 to individualised screening (6, 12 or 24 months for high, medium and low risk) determined by a risk calculation engine, using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control). Primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight threatening DR (STDR). Cost effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from NHS and societal perspectives.

Findings: 4534 participants were randomised, 2265 to the individualised and 2269 to the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between individualised (1754/2097, 83·6%) and control (1883/2224, 84·7%) arms (difference -1·0, 95% CI -3·2 to 1·2). STDR detection rates were non-inferior: individualised 1·4%, control 1·7% (- 0·3, -1·1 to 0·5). Sensitivity analyses confirmed findings. Incremental QALYs/person were non-significant: EQ-5D-5L 0·035 (CI -0·04, 0·13), HUI3 0·009 (CI -0·09, 0·10). Incremental cost savings were £21·31 (CI 15·24, 26·79)/person for the NHS and £28·87 (CI 21·08, 35·78) including societal costs. 43·2% fewer screening appointments were required in the individualised arm.

Interpretation: stakeholders involved in diabetes care can be reassured by this largest ophthalmic RCT in DR screening to date that extended and individualised risk-based intervals can be safely and cost effectively introduced in established screening programmes.
Broadbent, Deborah
b8be8c08-fcc5-430b-a15b-892dca6755b3
Wang, Amu
aedb6067-d86c-4f26-bba1-d8a8911a995a
Cheyne, Christopher P.
390e9813-0b7f-4e92-8a81-2ec3f997a9a6
James, Marilyn
99de860b-029b-4379-9816-0a002d247888
Lathe, James G.
f0408dd7-37f6-4023-8f3f-5d980bfc2d78
Stratton, Irene M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Roberts, John
3ca04dd9-fa31-441d-a367-1fcc0ab2dd60
Moitt, Tracy
d9bfa471-f346-4a7f-883e-1644ee1dd4f6
Vora, Jiten P.
40e3a925-9868-4b97-82d9-8d8650dd18e6
Gabbay, Mark
8a2b4866-65d4-4690-aeba-6545d2895e6f
García-Fiñana, Marta
3ed2efab-455f-42bf-ae3e-4171a6af98ed
Harding, Simon P.
10091207-4f52-491b-b069-98bb37444f5b
Broadbent, Deborah
b8be8c08-fcc5-430b-a15b-892dca6755b3
Wang, Amu
aedb6067-d86c-4f26-bba1-d8a8911a995a
Cheyne, Christopher P.
390e9813-0b7f-4e92-8a81-2ec3f997a9a6
James, Marilyn
99de860b-029b-4379-9816-0a002d247888
Lathe, James G.
f0408dd7-37f6-4023-8f3f-5d980bfc2d78
Stratton, Irene M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Roberts, John
3ca04dd9-fa31-441d-a367-1fcc0ab2dd60
Moitt, Tracy
d9bfa471-f346-4a7f-883e-1644ee1dd4f6
Vora, Jiten P.
40e3a925-9868-4b97-82d9-8d8650dd18e6
Gabbay, Mark
8a2b4866-65d4-4690-aeba-6545d2895e6f
García-Fiñana, Marta
3ed2efab-455f-42bf-ae3e-4171a6af98ed
Harding, Simon P.
10091207-4f52-491b-b069-98bb37444f5b

[Unknown type: UNSPECIFIED]

Record type: UNSPECIFIED

Abstract

Background: varying diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening intervals, informed by personal risk-levels, empowers people with diabetes (PWD), and offers reallocation of resources to high risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. Safety data on extending intervals is minimal. We evaluated the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of individualised risk-based variable-interval population screening compared to usual care, with design input from PWD.

Methods: two-arm, parallel assignment, equivalence randomised controlled trial (minimum 2 year follow-up) in PWD aged ≥12 years registered with one English screening programme. Randomisation was 1:1 to individualised screening (6, 12 or 24 months for high, medium and low risk) determined by a risk calculation engine, using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control). Primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight threatening DR (STDR). Cost effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from NHS and societal perspectives.

Findings: 4534 participants were randomised, 2265 to the individualised and 2269 to the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between individualised (1754/2097, 83·6%) and control (1883/2224, 84·7%) arms (difference -1·0, 95% CI -3·2 to 1·2). STDR detection rates were non-inferior: individualised 1·4%, control 1·7% (- 0·3, -1·1 to 0·5). Sensitivity analyses confirmed findings. Incremental QALYs/person were non-significant: EQ-5D-5L 0·035 (CI -0·04, 0·13), HUI3 0·009 (CI -0·09, 0·10). Incremental cost savings were £21·31 (CI 15·24, 26·79)/person for the NHS and £28·87 (CI 21·08, 35·78) including societal costs. 43·2% fewer screening appointments were required in the individualised arm.

Interpretation: stakeholders involved in diabetes care can be reassured by this largest ophthalmic RCT in DR screening to date that extended and individualised risk-based intervals can be safely and cost effectively introduced in established screening programmes.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2020

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 487035
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/487035
PURE UUID: da87f289-f991-466c-af1f-ae729e944690
ORCID for Irene M. Stratton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1172-7865

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Feb 2024 17:49
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:01

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Deborah Broadbent
Author: Amu Wang
Author: Christopher P. Cheyne
Author: Marilyn James
Author: James G. Lathe
Author: Irene M. Stratton ORCID iD
Author: John Roberts
Author: Tracy Moitt
Author: Jiten P. Vora
Author: Mark Gabbay
Author: Marta García-Fiñana
Author: Simon P. Harding

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×