June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Developing Behavior-Based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Guidelines
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Taewoo Lee
    Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Poria Dorali
    Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Zahed Shahmoradi
    Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Christina Y Weng
    Baylor College of Medicine Department of Ophthalmology, Houston, Texas, United States
    Department of Ophthalmology, Ben Taub Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Taewoo Lee, None; Poria Dorali, None; Zahed Shahmoradi, None; Christina Weng, Alcon (C), Alimera Sciences (C), Allergan/Abbvie (C), DORC (C), Genentech (C), Novartis (C), Regeneron (C), REGENXBIO (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  NSF Grant CMMI#1907933; NSF Grant CMMI#1908244
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 1141. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Taewoo Lee, Poria Dorali, Zahed Shahmoradi, Christina Y Weng; Developing Behavior-Based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Guidelines. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):1141.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Personalized screening guidelines can be an effective strategy to prevent diabetic retinopathy (DR)-related vision loss. However, these strategies typically do not capture behavior-based factors such as a patient’s compliance or cost preferences. This study develops a mathematical model to identify screening policies that capture both DR progression and behavioral factors to provide personalized recommendations.

Methods : A partially observable Markov decision process model (POMDP) is developed to provide personalized screening recommendations. For each patient, the model estimates the patient’s probability of having a sight-threatening diabetic eye disorder (STDED) yearly via Bayesian inference based on natural history, screening results, and compliance behavior. The model then determines a personalized, threshold-based recommendation for each patient annually—either no action (NA), teleretinal imaging (TRI), or clinical screening (CS)—based on the patient’s current probability of having STDED as well as patient-specific preference between cost saving ($) and QALY gain. The framework is applied to a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old African American male patients.

Results : For the base population with TRI and CS compliance rates of 65% and 55% and equal preference for cost and QALY, NA is identified as an optimal recommendation when the patient’s probability of having STDED is less than 0.72%, TRI when the probability is [0.72%, 2.09%], and CS when the probability is above 2.09%. Simulated against annual clinical screening, the model-based policy finds an average decrease of 7.07% in cost/QALY (95% CI; 6.93-7.23%) and 15.05% in blindness prevalence over a patient’s lifetime (95% CI; 14.88-15.23%). For patients with equal preference for cost and QALY, the model identifies 6 different types of threshold-based policies (See Fig 1). For patients with strong preference for QALY gain, CS-only policies had an increase in prevalence by a factor of 19.2 (see Fig 2).

Conclusions : The POMDP model is highly flexible and responsive in incorporating behavioral factors when providing personalized screening recommendations. As a decision support tool, providers can use this modeling framework to provide unique, catered recommendations.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

Fig (1) Screening policies in order of increasing STDED probability with equal costs ($) and QALYs preference.

Fig (1) Screening policies in order of increasing STDED probability with equal costs ($) and QALYs preference.

 

Fig (2) Screening policies in order of increasing STDED probability with strong QALYs preference.

Fig (2) Screening policies in order of increasing STDED probability with strong QALYs preference.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×