Recent evidence of economic evaluation of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology.
Journal
Current opinion in ophthalmology
ISSN: 1531-7021
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Ophthalmol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9011108
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2023
01 Sep 2023
Historique:
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
17
7
2023
entrez:
17
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Health economic evaluation (HEE) is essential for assessing value of health interventions, including artificial intelligence. Recent approaches, current challenges, and future directions of HEE of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology are reviewed. Majority of recent HEEs of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology were for diabetic retinopathy screening. Two models, one conducted in the rural USA (5-year period) and another in China (35-year period), found artificial intelligence to be more cost-effective than without screening for diabetic retinopathy. Two additional models, which compared artificial intelligence with human screeners in Brazil and Thailand for the lifetime of patients, found artificial intelligence to be more expensive from a healthcare system perspective. In the Thailand analysis, however, artificial intelligence was less expensive when opportunity loss from blindness was included. An artificial intelligence model for screening retinopathy of prematurity was cost-effective in the USA. A model for screening age-related macular degeneration in Japan and another for primary angle close in China did not find artificial intelligence to be cost-effective, compared with no screening. The costs of artificial intelligence varied widely in these models. Like other medical fields, there is limited evidence in assessing the value of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology and more appropriate HEE models are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37459289
doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000987
pii: 00055735-990000000-00110
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
449-458Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Pierson L, Verguet S. When should global health actors prioritise more uncertain interventions? Lancet Glob Health 2023; 11:e615e622.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes. 4th ed.London: Oxford Academic; 2015.
Rudmik L, Drummond M. Health economic evaluation: important principles and methodology. Laryngoscope 2013; 123:13411347.
Fuchs VR. Major concepts of healthcare economics. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162:380383.
Matheny ME, Whicher D, Thadaney Israni S. Artificial intelligence in healthcare. JAMA 2020; 323:509.
Anton N, Doroftei B, Curteanu S, et al. Comprehensive review on the use of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology and future research directions. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 13:100.
Voets MM, Veltman J, Slump CH, et al. Systematic review of health economic evaluations focused on artificial intelligence in healthcare: the tortoise and the cheetah. Value in Health 2022; 25:340349.
Ruamviboonsuk P, Chantra S, Seresirikachorn K, et al. Economic evaluations of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol 2021; 10:307316.
Kuper H, Jofre-Bonet M, Gilbert C. Economic evaluation for ophthalmologists. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2006; 13:393401.
Whicher D, Rapp T. The value of artificial intelligence for healthcare decision making-lessons learned. Value Health 2022; 25:328330.
Palmer S, Raftery J. Economics notes: opportunity cost. BMJ 1999; 318:15511552.
Byford S, Raftery J. Economics notes: perspectives in economic evaluation. BMJ 1998; 316:15291530.
Torgerson DJ, Spencer A. Marginal costs and benefits. BMJ 1996; 312:3536.
Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13:397409.
Vitez TS. Principles of cost analysis. J Clin Anesth 1994; 6:357363.
Xie Y, Nguyen QD, Hamzah H, et al. Artificial intelligence for teleophthalmology-based diabetic retinopathy screening in a national programme: an economic analysis modelling study. Lancet Digit Health 2020; 2:e240e249.
Robinson R. Cost-benefit analysis. BMJ 1993; 307:924926.
Brown GC, Brown MM, Rapuano SB, Boyer D. A cost-benefit analysis of VEGF-inhibitor therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the United States. Am J Ophthalmol 2021; 223:405429.
Robinson R. Cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ 1993; 307:793795.
Tufail A, Rudisill C, Egan C, et al. Automated diabetic retinopathy image assessment software: diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness compared with human graders. Ophthalmology 2017; 124:343351.
Robinson R. Cost-utility analysis. BMJ 1993; 307:859862.
Srisubat A, Kittrongsiri K, Sangroongruangsri S, et al. Cost-utility analysis of deep learning and trained human graders for diabetic retinopathy screening in a nationwide program. Ophthalmol Ther 2023; 12:1339.
Hendrix N, Veenstra DL, Cheng M, et al. Assessing the economic value of clinical artificial intelligence: challenges and opportunities. Value Health 2022; 25:331339.
DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ 2016; 47:2033.
Scotland GS, McNamee P, Philip S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of implementing automated grading within the national screening programme for diabetic retinopathy in Scotland. Br J Ophthalmol 2007; 91:15181523.
Bank of England. Inflation calculator [Internet]. 2023 [cited 5 April 2023]. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator [Accessed 5 April 2023]
Fuller SD, Hu J, Liu JC, et al. Five-year cost-effectiveness modeling of primary care-based, nonmydriatic automated retinal image analysis screening among low-income patients with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2022; 16:415427.
Wolf RM, Channa R, Abramoff MD, Lehmann HP. Cost-effectiveness of autonomous point-of-care diabetic retinopathy screening for pediatric patients with diabetes. JAMA Ophthalmol 2020; 138:10631069.
Huang XM, Yang BF, Zheng WL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence screening for diabetic retinopathy in rural China. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22:260.
Rossi JG, Rojas-Perilla N, Krois J, Schwendicke F. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence as a decision-support system applied to the detection and grading of melanoma, dental caries, and diabetic retinopathy. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e220269e1220269.
Morrison SL, Dukhovny D, Chan RVP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence-based retinopathy of prematurity screening. JAMA Ophthalmol 2022; 140:401409.
Liu J, Gibson E, Ramchal S, et al. Diabetic retinopathy screening with automated retinal image analysis in a primary care setting improves adherence to ophthalmic care. Ophthalmol Retina 2021; 5:7177.
Tamura H, Akune Y, Hiratsuka Y, et al. Real-world effectiveness of screening programs for age-related macular degeneration: amended Japanese specific health checkups and augmented screening programs with OCT or AI. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2022; 66:1932.
Xiao X, Xue L, Ye L, et al. Healthcare cost and benefits of artificial intelligence-assisted population-based glaucoma screening for the elderly in remote areas of China: a cost-offset analysis. BMC Public Health 2021; 21:1065.
Jampel HD, Friedman D, Quigley H, et al. Agreement among glaucoma specialists in assessing progressive disc changes from photographs in open-angle glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol 2009; 147:3944. e1.
Lewis NJ. Towards better patient outcomes - the cost-offset model. PharmacoResources 1995; 28:34.
Brown JM, Campbell JP, Beers A, et al. Automated diagnosis of plus disease in retinopathy of prematurity using deep convolutional neural networks. JAMA Ophthalmol 2018; 136:803.
Redd TK, Campbell JP, Brown JM, et al. Evaluation of a deep learning image assessment system for detecting severe retinopathy of prematurity. Br J Ophthalmol 2019; 103:580584.
Tong Y, Lu W, Deng QQ, et al. Automated identification of retinopathy of prematurity by image-based deep learning. Eye Vis (Lond) 2020; 7:40.
Tan Z, Simkin S, Lai C, Dai S. Deep learning algorithm for automated diagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity plus disease. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2019; 8:23.
Johnson SJ. Assessing the value of artificial intelligence in retinopathy of prematurity screening: be specific with regard to the data. JAMA Ophthalmol 2022; 140:409410.
Zarranz-Ventura J, Liew G, Johnston RL, et al. The neovascular age-related macular degeneration database: report 2: incidence, management, and visual outcomes of second treated eyes. Ophthalmology 2014; 121:19661975.
Gangnon RE, Lee KE, Klein BEK, et al. Severity of age-related macular degeneration in 1 eye and the incidence and progression of age-related macular degeneration in the fellow eye: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015; 133:125132.
Brown GC. Vision and quality-of-life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1999; 97:473.
Rasmussen A, Fuchs J, Hansen LH, et al. Neovascular age-related macular degeneration: is it worthwhile treating an eye with poor visual acuity, if the visual acuity of the fellow eye is good? Eye 2017; 31:978980.
Tamura H, Goto R, Akune Y, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for age-related macular degeneration in Japan: a Markov modeling study. Chiu CJ, editor. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0133628.
Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. Quality of life with visual acuity loss from diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120:481484.
Poku E, Brazier J, Carlton J, Ferreira A. Health state utilities in patients with diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular oedema and age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol 2013; 13:74.
Gutierrez L, Lim JS, Foo LL, et al. Application of artificial intelligence in cataract management: current and future directions. Eye Vis (Lond) 2022; 9:3.
Steinmetz JD, Bourne RRA, Briant PS, et al. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health 2021; 9:e144e160.
Yang D, Ran AR, Nguyen TX, et al. Deep learning in optical coherence tomography angiography: current progress, challenges, and future directions. Diagnostics 2023; 13:326.
Moraes G, Fu DJ, Wilson M, et al. Quantitative analysis of OCT for neovascular age-related macular degeneration using deep learning. Ophthalmology 2021; 128:693705.
Midena E, Toto L, Frizziero L, et al. Validation of an automated artificial intelligence algorithm for the quantification of major OCT parameters in diabetic macular edema. J Clin Med 2023; 12:2134.
Habra O, Gallardo M, Meyer zu Westram T, et al. Evaluation of an artificial intelligence-based detector of sub- and intraretinal fluid on a large set of optical coherence tomography volumes in age-related macular degeneration and diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmologica 2022; 245:516527.
Bora A, Balasubramanian S, Babenko B, et al. Predicting the risk of developing diabetic retinopathy using deep learning. Lancet Digit Health 2020; 0:e10e19.
Yim J, Chopra R, Spitz T, et al. Predicting conversion to wet age-related macular degeneration using deep learning. Nat Med 2020; 26:892899.
de Vos J, Visser LA, de Beer AA, et al. The potential cost-effectiveness of a machine learning tool that can prevent untimely intensive care unit discharge. Value Health 2022; 25:359367.
Rodriguez PJ, Veenstra DL, Heagerty PJ, et al. A framework for using real-world data and health outcomes modeling to evaluate machine learning-based risk prediction models. Value Health 2022; 25:350358.