Economic evaluation of combined population-based screening for multiple blindness-causing eye diseases in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Issue 3 (March 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Liu, Hanruo; Li, Ruyue; Zhang, Yue; Zhang, Kaiwen; Yusufu, Mayinuer; Liu, Yanting; Mou, Dapeng; Chen, Xiaoniao; Tian, Jiaxin; Li, Huiqi; Fan, Sujie; Tang, Jianjun; Wang, Ningli
• Is Part Of: Lancet. Volume 11:Issue 3(2023)
• Page Start: e456
• Page End: e465
• Publication Date: 2023-03
• Subjects: World health -- Periodicals; 362.105
• DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00554-X
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2214-109X

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$2494 (95% CI 1130 to 2716) and an ICER of $12 487 (8773 to 18 791) in rural settings. In urban areas, the ICUR was $624 (395 to 907), and the ICER was $7251 (4238 to 13 501). Non-AI telemedicine screening could result in fewer costs and greater gains in health benefits (ICUR $2326 [1064 to 2538] and ICER $11 766 [8200 to 18 000] in rural settings; ICUR $581 [368 to 864] and ICER $6920 [3926 to 13 231] in urban settings). AI telemedicine screening dominated no screening in rural settings, and in urban settings the ICUR was $244 (–315 to 1073) and the ICER 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.