Purpose: To evaluate interobserver and intertest agreement between optical coherence tomography (OCT) and retinography in the detection of glaucoma through a telemedicine program. Methods: A stratified sample of 4113 individuals was randomly selected, and those who accepted underwent examination including visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), non-mydriatic retinography, and imaging using a portable OCT device. Participants’ data and images were uploaded and assessed by 16 ophthalmologists on a deferred basis. Two independent evaluations were performed for all participants. Agreement between methods was assessed using the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). We analyzed potential factors possibly influencing the level of agreement. Results: The final sample comprised 1006 participants. Of all suspected glaucoma cases (n = 201), 20.4% were identified in retinographs only, 11.9% in OCT images only, 46.3% in both, and 21.4% were diagnosed based on other data. Overall interobserver agreement outcomes were moderate to good with a kappa coefficient of 0.37 and a PABAK index of 0.58. Higher values were obtained by experienced evaluators (kappa = 0.61; PABAK = 0.82). Kappa and PABAK values between OCT and photographs were 0.52 and 0.82 for the first evaluation. Conclusion: In a telemedicine screening setting, interobserver agreement on diagnosis was moderate but improved with greater evaluator expertise.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography (OCT) and retinography in the detection of glaucoma through a telemedicine program. Methods: A population-based sample of 4113 persons was randomly selected. The screening examination included a fundus photograph and OCT images. Images were evaluated on a deferred basis. All participants were then invited to a complete glaucoma examination, including gonioscopy, visual field, and dilated fundus examination. The detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Results: We screened 1006 persons. Of these, 201 (19.9%) were classified as glaucoma suspects; 20.4% were identified only by retinographs, 11.9% only by OCT images, and 46.3% by both. On ophthalmic examination at the hospital (n = 481), confirmed glaucoma was found in 58 (12.1%), probable glaucoma in 76 (15.8%), and ocular hypertension in 10 (2.1%), and no evidence of glaucoma was found in 337 (70.0%). The detection rate for confirmed or probable glaucoma was 9.2%. Sensitivity ranged from 69.4% to 86.2% and specificity from 82.1% to 97.4%, depending on the definition applied. Conclusions: The combination of OCT images and fundus photographs yielded a detection rate of 9.2% in a population-based screening program with moderate sensitivity, high specificity, and predictive values of 84–96%.

Précis: The manuscript evaluates cost-effectiveness of glaucoma screening with imaging devices and telemedicine based on a screening campaign performed in Spain. The screening strategy implemented in our analysis was cost-effective compared with opportunistic case finding. Introduction: Open angle glaucoma is an asymptomatic ocular disease that represents one of the first causes of blindness. Diagnosis is currently made by opportunistic case finding, usually by community optometrists or general ophthalmologists. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a screening strategy based on optical coherence tomography and fundus photographs in glaucoma detection. Materials and Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out to compare 2 alternative strategies: opportunistic finding versus screening. A Markov tree model was carried out with 10 health states according to disease progression. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as a measure of effectiveness. We included short-term and long-term direct health costs and a discount rate of 3%. We performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis and several 1-way sensitivity analyses. Results: The cohort in the screening program entailed an increase in 0.097 QALYs and additional costs of €1187 versus opportunistic finding, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about €12.214/QALY. The 1-way sensitivity analysis showed that inputs related to age and screening program (cost and detection rate) were those most strongly influencing the results of the analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust to significant changes in the main variables of the analysis. Conclusions: The screening strategy implemented in our analysis was cost-effective compared with opportunistic finding in patients with glaucoma in this Spanish setting.