Aleksandra Stanimirovic1, Troy Francis1, Nida Shahid2, Olivera Sutakovic3, Rebecca Merritt4, Michael H Brent3, Valeria E Rac5. 1. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (TGHRI), University Health Network (UHN), Toronto, Ontario. 2. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (TGHRI), University Health Network (UHN), Toronto, Ontario; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (IHPME), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. 3. Donald K. Johnson Eye Institute, University Health Network (UHN)-Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario; Diabetes Action Canada, CIHR SPOR Network. 4. South Riverdale Community Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario. 5. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (TGHRI), University Health Network (UHN), Toronto, Ontario; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (IHPME), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Diabetes Action Canada, CIHR SPOR Network; Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (TGHRI), University Health Network (UHN), Toronto, Ontario. Electronic address: valeria.rac@theta.utoronto.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the pilot Toronto tele-retina screening program in comparison with existing standard of care (SOC) diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening for patients with diabetes mellitus and in a simulated Pan-Ontarian cohort. METHODS: Decision trees were constructed to compare tele-retina to SOC in the pilot and Pan-Ontarian cohort. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case detected (true-positive) and cost per case correctly diagnosed (true-positive and true-negative results). RESULTS: Pilot program screening costs were $95.77 and $137.56 for tele-retina and SOC, respectively. In the base-case analysis, cost per case correctly detected was $379.06 with tele-retina and $985.56 with SOC, and the cost per case correctly diagnosed was $109.29 and $315.22, respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, cost per case correctly detected was $467.29 with tele-retina and $894.93 with SOC, and the cost per case correctly diagnosed was $136.88 and $250.35, respectively. Pan-Ontarian screening costs were $57.58 and $137.56 for tele-retina and SOC, respectively. The cost per case correctly detected was $281.10 with tele-retina and $982.00 with SOC, and the cost per case correctly diagnosed was $82.21 and $314.14, respectively. For both pilot and Pan-Ontarian sensitivity analyses, tele-retina remained the dominant strategy (ICER <0). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that tele-retina is a more cost-effective means of screening for diabetic retinopathy than the SOC in urban and rural underscreened communities. Subsequent economic studies should focus on evaluations that consider the impact of tele-retina on the prevention of severe vision loss in underscreened urban and rural communities.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the pilot Toronto tele-retina screening program in comparison with existing standard of care (SOC) diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening for patients with diabetes mellitus and in a simulated Pan-Ontarian cohort. METHODS: Decision trees were constructed to compare tele-retina to SOC in the pilot and Pan-Ontarian cohort. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per case detected (true-positive) and cost per case correctly diagnosed (true-positive and true-negative results). RESULTS: Pilot program screening costs were $95.77 and $137.56 for tele-retina and SOC, respectively. In the base-case analysis, cost per case correctly detected was $379.06 with tele-retina and $985.56 with SOC, and the cost per case correctly diagnosed was $109.29 and $315.22, respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, cost per case correctly detected was $467.29 with tele-retina and $894.93 with SOC, and the cost per case correctly diagnosed was $136.88 and $250.35, respectively. Pan-Ontarian screening costs were $57.58 and $137.56 for tele-retina and SOC, respectively. The cost per case correctly detected was $281.10 with tele-retina and $982.00 with SOC, and the cost per case correctly diagnosed was $82.21 and $314.14, respectively. For both pilot and Pan-Ontarian sensitivity analyses, tele-retina remained the dominant strategy (ICER <0). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that tele-retina is a more cost-effective means of screening for diabetic retinopathy than the SOC in urban and rural underscreened communities. Subsequent economic studies should focus on evaluations that consider the impact of tele-retina on the prevention of severe vision loss in underscreened urban and rural communities.