Risa M Wolf1, Roomasa Channa2, Michael D Abramoff3,4,5,6,7, Harold P Lehmann8. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The University of Iowa, Iowa City. 4. Digital Diagnostics, Coralville, Iowa. 5. Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City. 7. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City. 8. Division of Health Sciences Informatics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
Importance: Screening for diabetic retinopathy is recommended for children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet screening rates remain low. Point-of-care diabetic retinopathy screening using autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) has become available, providing immediate results in the clinic setting, but the cost-effectiveness of this strategy compared with standard examination is unknown. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic retinopathy and its sequelae among children with T1D and T2D using AI diabetic retinopathy screening vs standard screening by an eye care professional (ECP). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, parameter estimates were obtained from the literature from 1994 to 2019 and assessed from March 2019 to January 2020. Parameters included out-of-pocket cost for autonomous AI screening, ophthalmology visits, and treating diabetic retinopathy; probability of undergoing standard retinal examination; relative odds of undergoing screening; and sensitivity, specificity, and diagnosability of the ECP screening examination and autonomous AI screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs or savings to the patient based on mean patient payment for diabetic retinopathy screening examination and cost-effectiveness based on costs or savings associated with the number of true-positive results identified by diabetic retinopathy screening. Results: In this study, the expected true-positive proportions for standard ophthalmologic screening by an ECP were 0.006 for T1D and 0.01 for T2D, and the expected true-positive proportions for autonomous AI were 0.03 for T1D and 0.04 for T2D. The base case scenario of 20% adherence estimated that use of autonomous AI would result in a higher mean patient payment ($8.52 for T1D and $10.85 for T2D) than conventional ECP screening ($7.91 for T1D and $8.20 for T2D). However, autonomous AI screening was the preferred strategy when at least 23% of patients adhered to diabetic retinopathy screening. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that point-of-care diabetic retinopathy screening using autonomous AI systems is effective and cost saving for children with diabetes and their caregivers at recommended adherence rates.
Importance: Screening for diabetic retinopathy is recommended for children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet screening rates remain low. Point-of-care diabetic retinopathy screening using autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) has become available, providing immediate results in the clinic setting, but the cost-effectiveness of this strategy compared with standard examination is unknown. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic retinopathy and its sequelae among children with T1D and T2D using AI diabetic retinopathy screening vs standard screening by an eye care professional (ECP). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, parameter estimates were obtained from the literature from 1994 to 2019 and assessed from March 2019 to January 2020. Parameters included out-of-pocket cost for autonomous AI screening, ophthalmology visits, and treating diabetic retinopathy; probability of undergoing standard retinal examination; relative odds of undergoing screening; and sensitivity, specificity, and diagnosability of the ECP screening examination and autonomous AI screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs or savings to the patient based on mean patient payment for diabetic retinopathy screening examination and cost-effectiveness based on costs or savings associated with the number of true-positive results identified by diabetic retinopathy screening. Results: In this study, the expected true-positive proportions for standard ophthalmologic screening by an ECP were 0.006 for T1D and 0.01 for T2D, and the expected true-positive proportions for autonomous AI were 0.03 for T1D and 0.04 for T2D. The base case scenario of 20% adherence estimated that use of autonomous AI would result in a higher mean patient payment ($8.52 for T1D and $10.85 for T2D) than conventional ECP screening ($7.91 for T1D and $8.20 for T2D). However, autonomous AI screening was the preferred strategy when at least 23% of patients adhered to diabetic retinopathy screening. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that point-of-care diabetic retinopathy screening using autonomous AI systems is effective and cost saving for children with diabetes and their caregivers at recommended adherence rates.
Authors: J K Stillman; G A Gole; R Wootton; N Woolfield; D Price; J Van der Westhuyzen; M Williams; J Williams Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Xinzhi Zhang; Jinan B Saaddine; Chiu-Fang Chou; Mary Frances Cotch; Yiling J Cheng; Linda S Geiss; Edward W Gregg; Ann L Albright; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J A Pugh; J M Jacobson; W A Van Heuven; J A Watters; M R Tuley; D R Lairson; R J Lorimor; A S Kapadia; R Velez Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1993-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Rebecca L Thomas; Frank D Dunstan; Stephen D Luzio; Sharmistha Roy Chowdhury; Rachel V North; Sarah L Hale; Robert L Gibbins; David R Owens Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Yao Liu; Victoria P Rajamanickam; Ravi S Parikh; Stephanie J Loomis; Carolyn E Kloek; Leo A Kim; Dorothy L Hitchmoth; Brian J Song; Dean C Xerras; Louis R Pasquale Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Steven L Morrison; Dmitry Dukhovny; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang; J Peter Campbell Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 8.253
Authors: Michael D Abràmoff; Cybil Roehrenbeck; Sylvia Trujillo; Juli Goldstein; Anitra S Graves; Michael X Repka; Ezequiel Zeke Silva Iii Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: Nita G Valikodath; Tala Al-Khaled; Emily Cole; Daniel S W Ting; Elmer Y Tu; J Peter Campbell; Michael F Chiang; Joelle A Hallak; R V Paul Chan Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 1.325