June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Cost-Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Steven Morrison
    Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
  • R.V. Paul Chan
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
  • Michael F Chiang
    National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States
  • J. Peter Campbell
    Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Steven Morrison, None; R.V. Paul Chan, Alcon (C), Genentech (F), Novartis (C), Phoenix Technology Group (S), Regeneron (F); Michael Chiang, Genentech (F), InTeleretina LLC (I), National Institute of Health (F), National Sciences Foundation (F), Novartis (C); J. Peter Campbell, Genentech (F), National Institute of Health (F), National Sciences Foundation (F), Research to Prevent Blindness (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 3258. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Steven Morrison, R.V. Paul Chan, Michael F Chiang, J. Peter Campbell; Cost-Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):3258.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Studies have shown that artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can help screen for treatment-requiring retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), though it is unknown how cost-effective this is versus standard methods. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of autonomous and assistive AI-based ROP screening compared to telemedicine and ophthalmoscopic screening over a range of probabilities, costs, and outcomes.

Methods : Decision trees created and analyzed in TreeAge Pro modeled outcomes and costs of four possible ROP screening strategies: ophthalmoscopy, telemedicine, assistive AI with telemedicine review, and autonomous AI with only positive screens reviewed. We assumed similar sensitivity for detection of severe ROP with a wide sensitivity analysis, but a higher specificity for ophthalmoscopy. Screening and treatment costs were based on Current Procedural Terminology codes, and opportunity costs to physicians were modeled. AI cost was assumed to be $30. Outcomes were based on the Early Treatment of ROP study, defined as timely treatment, late treatment, or correctly untreated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed comparing AI strategies to telemedicine and ophthalmoscopy, as was a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results : Autonomous AI was as effective and less costly than each other screening modality (Table 1). Cost of AI evaluation was the most important factor in the sensitivity analysis. AI-based ROP screening was cost-effective up to $17 for assistive and $43 for autonomous screening compared to telemedicine, and $51 and $73 compared to ophthalmoscopy. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, both AI screening modalities were cost-effective in over half of trials in all but one comparison (Figure 1).

Conclusions : We demonstrate that AI-based screening strategies may be more cost-effective than traditional screening modalities across a range of parameters, and cost-effectiveness depends significantly on what cost is assigned to AI.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

 

Figure 1a-d. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis comparing screening strategies. 95% of trials fall within the circle, and trials below and right of the willingness-to-pay line are green and cost-effective.

Figure 1a-d. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis comparing screening strategies. 95% of trials fall within the circle, and trials below and right of the willingness-to-pay line are green and cost-effective.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×