title: Cost-effectiveness of community versus hospital eye service follow-up for patients with quiescent treated age-related macular degeneration alongside the ECHoES randomised trial.
abstract: To assess the cost-effectiveness of optometrist-led follow-up monitoring reviews for patients with quiescent neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in community settings (including high street opticians) compared with ophthalmologist-led reviews in hospitals.
  
  
  
  A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis with a 4-week time horizon, based on a 'virtual' non-inferiority randomised trial designed to emulate a parallel group design.
  
  
  
  A virtual internet-based clinical assessment, conducted at community optometry practices, and hospital ophthalmology clinics.
  
  
  
  Ophthalmologists with experience in the age-related macular degeneration service; fully qualified optometrists not participating in nAMD shared care schemes.
  
  
  
  The participating optometrists and ophthalmologists classified lesions from vignettes and were asked to judge whether any retreatment was required. Vignettes comprised clinical information, colour fundus photographs and optical coherence tomography images. Participants' classifications were validated against experts' classifications (reference standard). Resource use and cost information were attributed to these retreatment decisions.
  
  
  
  Correct classification of whether further treatment is needed, compared with a reference standard.
  
  
  
  The mean cost per assessment, including the subsequent care pathway, was £411 for optometrists and £397 for ophthalmologists: a cost difference of £13 (95% CI -£18 to £45). Optometrists were non-inferior to ophthalmologists with respect to the overall percentage of lesions correctly assessed (difference -1.0%; 95% CI -4.5% to 2.5%).
  
  
  
  In the base case analysis, the slightly larger number of incorrect retreatment decisions by optometrists led to marginally and non-significantly higher costs. Sensitivity analyses that reflected different practices across eye hospitals indicate that shared care pathways between optometrists and ophthalmologists can be identified which may reduce demands on scant hospital resources, although in light of the uncertainty around differences in outcome and cost it remains unclear whether the differences between the 2 care pathways are significant in economic terms.
  
  
  
  ISRCTN07479761; Pre-results.
authors: Nuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.|Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, National Institute for Health Research, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Violato
authors: Nuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors: H
authors: H
authors: Dakin
authors: Centre for Experimental Medicine, Institute of Clinical Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
authors: U
authors: U
authors: Chakravarthy
authors: Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
authors: B C
authors: BC
authors: Reeves
authors: NIHR BMRC at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
authors: T
authors: T
authors: Peto
authors: Centre for Experimental Medicine, Institute of Clinical Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
authors: R E
authors: RE
authors: Hogg
authors: Department of Eye and Vision Science, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
authors: S P
authors: SP
authors: Harding
authors: Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
authors: L J
authors: LJ
authors: Scott
authors: Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
authors: J
authors: J
authors: Taylor
authors: Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
authors: H
authors: H
authors: Cappel-Porter
authors: School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
authors: N
authors: N
authors: Mills
authors: Centre for Experimental Medicine, Institute of Clinical Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
authors: D
authors: D
authors: O'Reilly
authors: Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
authors: C A
authors: CA
authors: Rogers
authors: Nuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Wordsworth
mesh_terms: D000553:Ambulatory Care; D000554:Ambulatory Care Facilities; D002983:Clinical Competence; D000066491:Clinical Decision-Making; D003153:Community Health Services; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D006761:Hospitals; D006801:Humans; D008268:Macular Degeneration / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy; D000072163:Ophthalmologists; D009885:Ophthalmology; D000072162:Optometrists; D009907:Optometry; D041623:Tomography, Optical Coherence
keywords: Macular degeneration; cost-effectiveness; ophthalmologists; optometrists