Cost-effectiveness analysis of artificial intelligence-based diabetic retinopathy screening in rural China based on...

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of different diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening strategies in rural regions in China by using a Markov model to make health economic evaluations. In this study, we determined the structure of a Markov model according to the research objectives, which required parameters collected through field investigation and literature retrieval. After perfecting the model with parameters and assumptions, we developed a Markov decision analytic model according to the natural history of DR in TreeAge Pro 2011. For this model, we performed Markov cohort and cost-effectiveness analyses to simulate the probabilistic distributions of different developments in DR and the cumulative cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI)-based screening and ophthalmologist screening for DR in the rural population with diabetes mellitus (DM) in China. Additionally, a model-based health economic evaluation was performed by using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Last, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the stability of the results. From the perspective of the health system, compared with no screening, AI-based screening cost more (the incremental cost was 37,257.76 RMB (approximately 5,211.31 US dollars)), but the effect was better (the incremental utility was 0.33). Compared with AI-based screening, the cost of ophthalmologist screening was higher (the incremental cost was 14,886.76 RMB (approximately 2,070.19 US dollars)), and the effect was worse (the incremental utility was -0.31). Compared with no screening, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AI-based DR screening was 112,146.99 RMB (15,595.47 US dollars)/QALY, which was less than the threshold for the ICER (< 3 times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP), 217,341.00 RMB (30,224.03 US dollars)). Therefore, AI-based screening was cost-effective, which meant that the increased cost for each additional quality-adjusted life year was merited. Compared with no screening and ophthalmologist screening for DR, AI-based screening was the most cost-effective, which not only saved costs but also improved the quality of life of diabetes patients. Popularizing AI-based DR screening strategies in rural areas would be economically effective and feasible and can provide a scientific basis for the further formulation of early screening programs for diabetic retinopathy.