Validity and cost-effectiveness of methods for screening of primary open angle glaucoma

HEALTH POLITICAL BACKGROUND About 950,000 people are affected by glaucoma in Germany, about 50% of which are undiagnosed. The German Ophthalmological Society and the German Association of Ophthalmologists recommend a screening for glaucoma according to their guidelines. The Federal Joint Committee disapproved a glaucoma-screening program on expense of the compulsory health insurance in 2004. SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND Primary open angle glaucoma is diagnosed by evaluation of the optic disc, the retinal fibre layer and the visual field. The main examinations are ophthalmoscopy, scanning laser polarimetry, confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, retinal thickness analysis and optical coherence tomography. Scotomas are diagnosed by perimetry (standard automated perimetry, short wavelength automated perimetry and frequency doubling perimetry). The intraocular pressure is the most important treatable risk factor and is measured by (contact or non-contact) tonometry. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The aim of this HTA-report is to investigate the diagnostic validity and cost effectiveness of diagnostic techniques or combinations of these methods with respect to the use in a screening setting in Germany. METHODS A systematic literature research was performed in 35 international databases and yielded 2602 articles. Overall 57 publications were included for assessment, according to predefined selection criteria. RESULTS The 55 medical articles deal mainly with frequency doubling perimetry, confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy and scanning laser polarimetry. Few articles cover short wavelength automated perimetry, tonometry and ophalmocopic evaluations by ophthalmologists. The quality of the papers is generally low, as far as the evidence in respect of screening is concerned. No single method exists with both, high sensitivity and high specificity for screening purpose. Data are also not sufficient to recommend combinations of methods. Only two economic models on cost-effectivenes of screening investigations could be identified. No economic evaluations of the most recent methods can be found in the published literature. A British cost-effectiveness analysis calculates cost per true positives and favours a combination of ophthalmoscopy, tonometry and perimetry either for people at high risk for glaucoma or for the total population as an initial examination. A Canadian HTA-report models the cost per year of blindness avoided. The report concludes that because of a high degree of uncertainty with respect to the benefits and the high costs involved, the setting-up of a glaucoma-screening program cannot be supported. DISCUSSION The literature shows that combinations of methods have to be used for screening of glaucoma in order to get reasonable values of sensitivity and specificity. Presently no combination of methods and no algorithm can be presented for glaucoma screening with sufficient evidence. Also no conclusions about cost-effectiveness for Germany can be made based on the available literature. CONCLUSIONS In order to find the optimal combination of methods for glaucoma-screening, population-based studies have to be performed. Therefore also no final conclusions can be drawn with respect to cost-effectiveness of glaucoma-screening methods. The economic evaluation of a clinical effective screening-method should consider the effects of blindness avoided, as well as effects on the prevention of visual impairment.