Economic evaluation of combined population-based screening for multiple blindness-causing eye diseases in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Hanruo Liu,Ruyue Li,Yue Zhang,Kaiwen Zhang,Mayinuer Yusufu,Yanting Liu,Dapeng Mou,Xiaoniao Chen,Jiaxin Tian,Huiqi Li,Sujie Fan,Jianjun Tang,Ningli Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00554-x
IF: 38.927
2023-01-25
The Lancet Global Health
Abstract:Summary Background More than 90% of vision impairment is avoidable. However, in China, a routine screening programme is currently unavailable in primary health care. With the dearth of economic evidence on screening programmes for multiple blindness-causing eye diseases, delivery options, and screening frequencies, we aimed to evaluate the costs and benefits of a population-based screening programme for multiple eye diseases in China. Methods We developed a decision-analytic Markov model for a cohort of individuals aged 50 years and older with a total of 30 1-year cycles. We calculated the cost-effectiveness and cost–utility of screening programmes for multiple major blindness-causing eye diseases in China, including age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, cataracts, and pathological myopia, from a societal perspective (including direct and indirect costs). We analysed rural and urban settings separately by different screening delivery options (non-telemedicine [ie, face-to-face] screening, artificial intelligence [AI] telemedicine screening, and non-AI telemedicine screening) and frequencies. We calculated incremental cost–utility ratios (ICURs) using quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of the cost per blindness year avoided. One-way deterministic and simulated probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the main outcomes. Findings Compared with no screening, non-telemedicine combined screening of multiple eye diseases satisfied the criterion for a highly cost-effective health intervention, with an ICUR of US 12 487 (8773 to 18 791) in rural settings. In urban areas, the ICUR was 7251 (4238 to 13 501). Non-AI telemedicine screening could result in fewer costs and greater gains in health benefits (ICUR 11 766 [8200 to 18 000] in rural settings; ICUR 6920 [3926 to 13 231] in urban settings). AI telemedicine screening dominated no screening in rural settings, and in urban settings the ICUR was 2567 (–4111 to 15 389). Sensitivity analyses showed all results to be robust. By further comparison, annual AI telemedicine screening was the most cost-effective strategy in both rural and urban areas. Interpretation Combined screening of multiple eye diseases is cost-effective in both rural and urban China. AI coupled with teleophthalmology presents an opportunity to promote equity in eye health. Funding National Natural Science Foundation of China.
medicine, general & internal
What problem does this paper attempt to address?