The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: A microsimulation study.
Cost-effectiveness
ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness
MISCAN, MIcrosimulation SCreening Analysis
QALYs, quality adjusted life-years
Screening
VA, visual acuity
Visual acuity
Journal
Preventive medicine reports
ISSN: 2211-3355
Titre abrégé: Prev Med Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101643766
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
30
12
2021
revised:
16
06
2022
accepted:
24
06
2022
entrez:
8
7
2022
pubmed:
9
7
2022
medline:
9
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Childhood vision screening programmes in Europe differ by age, frequency and location at which the child is screened, and by the professional who performs the test. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness for three countries with different health care structures. We developed a microsimulation model of amblyopia. The natural history parameters were calibrated to a Dutch observational study. Sensitivity, specificity, attendance, lost to follow-up and costs in the three countries were based on the EUSCREEN Survey. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using assumed utility loss for unilateral persistent amblyopia (1%) and bilateral visual impairment (8%). We calculated the cost-effectiveness of screening (with 3.5% annual discount) by visual acuity measurement at age 5 years or 4 and 5 years in the Netherlands by nurses in child healthcare centres, in England and Wales by orthoptists in schools and in Romania by urban kindergarten nurses. We compared screening at various ages and with various frequencies. Assuming an amblyopia prevalence of 36 per 1,000 children, the model predicted that 7.2 cases of persistent amblyopia were prevented in the Netherlands, 6.6 in England and Wales and 4.5 in Romania. The cost-effectiveness was €24,159, €19,981 and €23,589, per QALY gained respectively, compared with no screening. Costs/QALY was influenced most by assumed utility loss of unilateral persistent amblyopia. For all three countries, screening at age 5, or age 4 and 5 years were optimal. Despite differences in health care structure, vision screening by visual acuity measurement seemed cost-effective in all three countries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35801001
doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101868
pii: S2211-3355(22)00175-9
pmc: PMC9253646
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101868Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2012 May-Jun;49(3):146-55; quiz 145, 156
pubmed: 21877675
Health Technol Assess. 2008 Jun;12(25):iii, xi-194
pubmed: 18513466
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010 Dec;248(12):1803-7
pubmed: 20697731
J Med Screen. 2015 Jun;22(2):55-64
pubmed: 25742803
Can J Ophthalmol. 2000 Aug;35(5):267-72
pubmed: 10959467
N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 16;367(7):595-605
pubmed: 22894572
J Neurophysiol. 1963 Nov;26:994-1002
pubmed: 14084171
Int J Audiol. 2021 Nov;60(11):821-830
pubmed: 33688794
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005 Feb;83(1):76-80
pubmed: 15715562
J Med Screen. 2013 Jun;20(2):66-72
pubmed: 24009090
Can J Public Health. 2022 Apr;113(2):297-311
pubmed: 34755325
BMC Ophthalmol. 2016 May 17;16(1):56
pubmed: 27184381
Acta Ophthalmol. 2019 Feb;97(1):24-28
pubmed: 30284395
Arch Ophthalmol. 2011 Nov;129(11):1451-7
pubmed: 21746970
Int J Equity Health. 2021 Dec 18;20(1):256
pubmed: 34922555
BMJ. 2006 Apr 8;332(7545):820-5
pubmed: 16520328
Int J Cancer. 2015 Oct 15;137(8):1990-9
pubmed: 25895135
Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):e95-108
pubmed: 14754978
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1998;96:431-50; discussion 450-3
pubmed: 10360300
Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Sep;88(9):1119-21
pubmed: 15317699
Acta Ophthalmol. 2022 Feb;100(1):e100-e114
pubmed: 33817982
Strabismus. 2021 Sep;29(3):174-181
pubmed: 34224304
Acta Ophthalmol. 2015 Jun;93(4):318-21
pubmed: 25270899
Br J Ophthalmol. 2007 Nov;91(11):1450-1
pubmed: 17522151
Lancet. 2015 Jun 6;385(9984):2308-19
pubmed: 25499167
Vision Res. 2014 Oct;103:11-9
pubmed: 25130409
J AAPOS. 2006 Dec;10(6):507-14
pubmed: 17189143
Br J Ophthalmol. 2007 Nov;91(11):1417-8
pubmed: 17947260
Eye (Lond). 2021 Mar;35(3):739-752
pubmed: 33257800
Acta Ophthalmol. 2020 Feb;98(1):80-88
pubmed: 31197950