RESUMO
Objective: Current cost-effectiveness analyses of amblyopia screening are mainly from western countries. It remains unclear whether it is cost-effective to implement a preschool amblyopia screening programme in China. Our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical kindergarten-based amblyopia screening versus non-screening among 3-year-old children. Methods: We developed a decision tree combined with a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of screening versus non-screening for 3-year-old children from a third-party payment perspective. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs were obtained from expert opinions in different regions of China. Transition probabilities and health utilities were mainly based on published literature and open sources. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of parameters' uncertainty on results. Results: Base-case analysis demonstrated that the ICER of screening versus non-screening was $17,466/QALY, well below the WTP threshold ($38,223/QALY) for China. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the prevalence of amblyopia, the transition probability per year from untreated amblyopia to healthy, and the discount rate were the top three factors. The likelihood of cost-effectiveness of screening compared with non-screening was 92.56%, according to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Scenario analysis also indicated that ICER was lower than the WTP threshold even if the time horizon was shortened or the screening was delayed to the age of 4 or 5. Conclusions: Amblyopia screening could be considered a cost-effective strategy compared to non-screening for 3-year-old children in China. Screening for children at the age of 4 or 5 may even yield better results.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different primary screening strategies: high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) alone, single immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT), double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening compared with no screening using the Markov model. METHODS: Treeage Pro V.2011 software was used to simulate the Markov model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was compared with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, was used to reflect the cost-effectiveness of the CRC screening method. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: All strategies had greater effectiveness because they had more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than no screening. When the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, all screening strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. The double iFOBT strategy was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies because it had the most QALYs and the least cost. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the sensitivity of low-risk adenoma, compliance with colonoscopy and primary screening cost were the main influencing factors comparing single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT with no screening. However, within the scope of this study, there was no fundamental impact on cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, the probabilities of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve with HRFQ alone, single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT were 0.0%, 5.3%, 69.3% and 25.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All screening strategies for CRC were cost-effective compared with no screening strategy. Double iFOBT was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies. The significant influencing factors were the sensitivity of low-risk polyps, compliance with colonoscopy and cost of primary screening.