Spencer D Fuller1, Jenny Hu2, James C Liu1, Ella Gibson1, Martin Gregory3, Jessica Kuo1, Rithwick Rajagopal1. 1. John F. Hardesty Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 2. Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. John T. Milliken Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence-based technology systems offer an alternative solution for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening compared with standard, in-office dilated eye examinations. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of Automated Retinal Image Analysis System (ARIAS)-based DR screening in a primary care medicine clinic that serves a low-income patient population. METHODS: A model-based, cost-effectiveness analysis of two DR screening systems was created utilizing data from a recent study comparing adherence rates to follow-up eye care among adults ages 18 or older with a clinical diagnosis of diabetes. In the study, the patients were prescreened with an ARIAS-based, nonmydriatic (undilated), point-of-care tool in the primary care setting and were compared with patients with diabetes who were referred for dilated retinal screening without prescreening, as is the current standard of care. Using a Markov model with microsimulation resulting in a total of 600 000 simulated patient experiences, we calculated the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of the two screening approaches, with regard to five-year cost-effectiveness of DR screening and treatment of vision-threatening DR. RESULTS: At five years, ARIAS-based screening showed similar utility as the standard of care screening systems. However, ARIAS reduced costs by 23.3%, with an ICUR of $258 721.81 comparing the current practice to ARIAS. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care-based ARIAS DR screening is cost-effective when compared with standard of care screening methods.
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence-based technology systems offer an alternative solution for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening compared with standard, in-office dilated eye examinations. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of Automated Retinal Image Analysis System (ARIAS)-based DR screening in a primary care medicine clinic that serves a low-income patient population. METHODS: A model-based, cost-effectiveness analysis of two DR screening systems was created utilizing data from a recent study comparing adherence rates to follow-up eye care among adults ages 18 or older with a clinical diagnosis of diabetes. In the study, the patients were prescreened with an ARIAS-based, nonmydriatic (undilated), point-of-care tool in the primary care setting and were compared with patients with diabetes who were referred for dilated retinal screening without prescreening, as is the current standard of care. Using a Markov model with microsimulation resulting in a total of 600 000 simulated patient experiences, we calculated the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of the two screening approaches, with regard to five-year cost-effectiveness of DR screening and treatment of vision-threatening DR. RESULTS: At five years, ARIAS-based screening showed similar utility as the standard of care screening systems. However, ARIAS reduced costs by 23.3%, with an ICUR of $258 721.81 comparing the current practice to ARIAS. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care-based ARIAS DR screening is cost-effective when compared with standard of care screening methods.
Entities:
Keywords:
artificial intelligence; cost-effectiveness analysis; diabetic retinopathy; healthcare economics; machine learning technology; public health
Authors: John D Whited; Santanu K Datta; Lloyd M Aiello; Lloyd P Aiello; Jerry D Cavallerano; Paul R Conlin; Mark B Horton; Robert A Vigersky; Ronald K Poropatich; Pratap Challa; Adam W Darkins; Sven-Erik Bursell Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Charumathi Sabanayagam; WanFen Yip; Daniel S W Ting; Gavin Tan; Tien Y Wong Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Jessica Kuo; James C Liu; Ella Gibson; P Kumar Rao; Todd P Margolis; Bradley Wilson; Mae O Gordon; Emily Fondahn; Rithwick Rajagopal Journal: Mo Med Date: 2020 May-Jun
Authors: Lauren P Daskivich; Carolina Vasquez; Carlos Martinez; Chi-Hong Tseng; Carol M Mangione Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Dan Milea; Raymond P Najjar; Jiang Zhubo; Daniel Ting; Caroline Vasseneix; Xinxing Xu; Masoud Aghsaei Fard; Pedro Fonseca; Kavin Vanikieti; Wolf A Lagrèze; Chiara La Morgia; Carol Y Cheung; Steffen Hamann; Christophe Chiquet; Nicolae Sanda; Hui Yang; Luis J Mejico; Marie-Bénédicte Rougier; Richard Kho; Tran Thi Ha Chau; Shweta Singhal; Philippe Gohier; Catherine Clermont-Vignal; Ching-Yu Cheng; Jost B Jonas; Patrick Yu-Wai-Man; Clare L Fraser; John J Chen; Selvakumar Ambika; Neil R Miller; Yong Liu; Nancy J Newman; Tien Y Wong; Valérie Biousse Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John A Wells; Adam R Glassman; Allison R Ayala; Lee M Jampol; Neil M Bressler; Susan B Bressler; Alexander J Brucker; Frederick L Ferris; G Robert Hampton; Chirag Jhaveri; Michele Melia; Roy W Beck Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Tien Y Wong; Mkaya Mwamburi; Ronald Klein; Michael Larsen; Harry Flynn; Marisol Hernandez-Medina; Gayatri Ranganathan; Barbara Wirostko; Andreas Pleil; Paul Mitchell Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Matthew R Starr; Rachel Israilevich; Michael Zhitnitsky; Qianqian E Cheng; Rebecca R Soares; Luv G Patel; Michael J Ammar; M Ali Khan; Yoshihiro Yonekawa; Allen C Ho; Michael N Cohen; Jayanth Sridhar; Ajay E Kuriyan Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Margarita Labkovich; Megan Paul; Eliott Kim; Randal A Serafini; Shreyas Lakhtakia; Aly A Valliani; Andrew J Warburton; Aashay Patel; Davis Zhou; Bonnie Sklar; James Chelnis; Ebrahim Elahi Journal: Digit Health Date: 2022-05-06