Cost-effectiveness analysis of tele-retinopathy of prematurity screening in Iran

Costs associated with retinopathy of prematurity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To review and analyse evidence regarding costs for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening, lifetime costs and resource use among infants born preterm who develop ROP, and how these costs have developed over time in different regions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Scopus from inception to 23 June 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Included studies presented costs for ROP screening and the lifetime costs (including laser treatment and follow-up costs) and resource use among people who develop ROP. Studies not reporting on cost calculation methods or ROP-specific costs were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers screened for inclusion and extracted data, including items from a published checklist for quality assessment used for bias assessment, summary and random-effects meta-analysis for treatment costs. Included studies were further searched to identify eligible references and citations.

RESULTS

In total, 15 studies reported ROP screening costs, and 13 reported lifetime costs (either treatment and/or follow-up costs) for infants with ROP. The range for screening costs (10 studies) was US$5-US$253 per visit, or US$324-US$1072 per screened child (5 studies). Costs for treatment (11 studies) ranged from US$38 to US$6500 per child. Four studies reported healthcare follow-up costs (lifetime costs ranging from US$64 to US$2420, and 10-year costs of US$1695, respectively), and of these, three also reported lifetime costs for blindness (range US$26 686-US$224 295) using secondary cost data. Included papers largely followed the quality assessment checklist items, thus indicating a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The costs of screening for and treating ROP are small compared with the societal costs of resulting blindness. However, little evidence is available for predicting the effects of changes in patient population, screening schedule or ROP treatments.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020208213.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Wide-Field Imaging as an Auxiliary Technology for Retinopathy of Prematurity Care in Brazil

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-utility of wide-field imaging (WFI) as a complementary technology for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening from the Brazilian Unified Health System's perspective. Introduction: ROP is one of the leading causes of avoidable childhood blindness worldwide, especially in middle-income countries. The current ROP screening involves indirect binocular ophthalmoscopy (IBO) by ROP expert ophthalmologists. However, there is still insufficient ROP screening coverage. An alternative screening strategy is the combination of WFI with IBO. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was performed using a deterministic decision-tree simulation model to estimate incremental cost-utility for ROP care. Two screening strategies were compared: (1) IBO and (2) combination of WFI of all eligible preterm infants and IBO for type 2 ROP or worse and for non-readable images. Eligible population included preterm infants <32 weeks of gestational age or birth weight equal to or <1,500 g. The temporal horizon was lifetime. Visual outcome data was converted to utility, and the health benefits were estimated on quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Incremental cost per QALY gained was calculated from the health system perspective. Costs were estimated considering equipment, maintenance, consumables, and staff. A micro-costing approach was used for WFI. Two technician nurses were trained for imaging execution and had their time evaluated. Two ROP expert ophthalmologists had their time evaluated for imaging reading. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. Results: Combined screening strategy resulted in a cost-effective program considering 90% ROP screening coverage. Costs per examination: (1) screening with IBO: US dollar (US $) 34.36; (2) screening with combination: US $58.20; (3) laser treatment: US $642.09; (4) long-term follow-up: ranged from US $69.33 to 286.91, based on the infant's visual function. Incremental cost per QALY gained was US $1,746.99/QALY per infant screened with the combination strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis resulted in cost-effectiveness for all parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded a 100% probability of combination being cost-effective in a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $1,800/QALY. Conclusion: The combined strategy for ROP screening was cost-effective. It enhances access for appropriate ROP care in middle-income countries and dminishes opportunity costs for ophthalmologists.