New research offers hope for diabetes patients with sight loss

A new laser treatment for patients with sight loss as a result of diabetes has been shown to be cost-effective and non-invasive, according to research following a clinical trial.

There are currently several treatment options offered to people with Diabetic Macular Oedema (DMO), including two types of laser treatment and eye injections.

DMO is the most common sight-threatening complication of diabetes, affecting more than 27 million adults.

DMO happens when blood vessels in the retina at the back of the eye leak, causing fluid build-up at the macula, which provides central vision. The leakage occurs when high blood sugar levels damage blood vessels.

The research, funded by NIHR and published in Ophthalmology, found that subthreshold micropulse laser, which does not create a burn on the retina, was effective in maintaining a patient’s vision.

This also requires less frequent visits to the clinic and is much more cost-effective than treatment via eye injections, with eye injections costing almost ten times more than laser treatments.

The total cost of the care of patients enrolled in the trial (including the laser treatment and any other treatments required as well as the costs of the follow-up visits) over two years was similar for both patient groups.

Over the two-year period, the cost per patient was just under £900 (£897.83) for patients in the subthreshold micropulse laser arm of the trial compared with £1125.66 for those in the standard laser arm.

Professor Noemi Lois, clinical professor of ophthalmology at Queens University and lead author on the study, said: “Laser treatment costs significantly less than eye injections.

“With an average of 10 injections required over two years, the total cost of eye injections per patient amounts to approximately £8,500 for the drug alone.

“This is almost 10 times the cost of subthreshold micropulse laser without taking into account additional costings such as staff time.

“Until we published these findings, there was no robust evidence comparing these types of laser treatments.

“A lack of information led some healthcare professionals to favour standard laser over subthreshold micropulse laser.

“We now have robust evidence to show that both laser treatments are not only effective in clearing the fluid from the retina and maintaining vision for at least two years, but both are also cost-effective.”

“Armed with this knowledge, it’s likely that patients will opt for micropulse subthreshold laser, which doesn’t burn the retina and is comparable to standard laser.

“While we didn’t directly compare laser treatments to treatment via eye injections, hopefully we have shown that laser is an effective treatment, while remaining much less invasive to the patient and much less costly to the NHS.”