Evaluates cost-effectiveness of OCT-enhanced screening for diabetic retinopathy, indicating greater health gains in type 2 diabetes.
Background Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of preventable blindness among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Early detection is essential to prevent vision-threatening complications. This study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of CODMAP (Ophthalmologic Screening for Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care (Cribado Oftalmológico en Diabetes Mellitus en Atención Primaria)), an optimised screening programme combining two-field non-mydriatic fundus photography (NMFP) and optical coherence tomography versus conventional single-field NMFP in a public healthcare setting. Methods A Markov model simulated DR progression over 50 years in a cohort of 7729 patients with T2DM. Eight health states reflected DR severity, with state-specific costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued annually. Analyses took the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service, applying a 3% annual discount rate. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, calculated as a ratio of means (ICERs ROM ), and net monetary benefits (NMBs) were estimated through 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations, at a €30 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses and bootstrap validation were performed. Results CODMAP accrued higher costs (€206.4 million vs €205.1 million) but more QALYs (128 691.7 vs 118 013.8), resulting in an ICER ROM of €124.25/QALY. The probability of cost-effectiveness at €30 000/QALY was 74.3%, remaining stable in scenario analyses (75.7%–78.8%). Mean incremental NMB in the base case was €319.0 million. Cost and QALY variations were the main drivers of uncertainty. Conclusion CODMAP offers greater long-term health gains at a favourable incremental cost per QALY in the Spanish context. However, the non-definitive probability of cost-effectiveness warrants cautious policy consideration, with attention to local infrastructure, implementation capacity and cost structures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bilbao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: