ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of portable wide-field digital imaging incorporation on screening neonatal causes of childhood blindness and visual impairment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. DESIGN: Budget impact analysis. SETTING: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the direct cost of indirect binocular ophthalmoscopy, red reflex test and portable wide-field digital image screening comprising all babies born in Rio de Janeiro's government maternity wards. The secondary outcome was the budget impact of implementing portable wide-field digital image screening in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. RESULTS: Considering 100% coverage of maternity wards, the total budget impact between 2020 and 2024 would be US$3 820 706.04, ranging from US$3 139 844.34 to US$6 099 510.35. The additional cost would be US$3 124 457.28, ranging from US$2 714 492.26 to US$4 880 608.63. CONCLUSION: The cost of universal digital imaging screening corresponds to less than 1% of the government health budget of the city of Rio de Janeiro. The information provided in this study may help government decision-makers evaluate the feasibility of implementing this new strategy in the municipal setting. Further health economic evaluations should be performed to verify the affordability of the implementation of this screening strategy in the Brazilian scenario, taking into account scarce human resources.
Subject(s)
Budgets , Government , Brazil , Costs and Cost Analysis , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , Vision DisordersABSTRACT
Purpose: To evaluate the cost-utility of wide-field imaging (WFI) as a complementary technology for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening from the Brazilian Unified Health System's perspective. Introduction: ROP is one of the leading causes of avoidable childhood blindness worldwide, especially in middle-income countries. The current ROP screening involves indirect binocular ophthalmoscopy (IBO) by ROP expert ophthalmologists. However, there is still insufficient ROP screening coverage. An alternative screening strategy is the combination of WFI with IBO. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was performed using a deterministic decision-tree simulation model to estimate incremental cost-utility for ROP care. Two screening strategies were compared: (1) IBO and (2) combination of WFI of all eligible preterm infants and IBO for type 2 ROP or worse and for non-readable images. Eligible population included preterm infants <32 weeks of gestational age or birth weight equal to or <1,500 g. The temporal horizon was lifetime. Visual outcome data was converted to utility, and the health benefits were estimated on quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Incremental cost per QALY gained was calculated from the health system perspective. Costs were estimated considering equipment, maintenance, consumables, and staff. A micro-costing approach was used for WFI. Two technician nurses were trained for imaging execution and had their time evaluated. Two ROP expert ophthalmologists had their time evaluated for imaging reading. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. Results: Combined screening strategy resulted in a cost-effective program considering 90% ROP screening coverage. Costs per examination: (1) screening with IBO: US dollar (US $) 34.36; (2) screening with combination: US $58.20; (3) laser treatment: US $642.09; (4) long-term follow-up: ranged from US $69.33 to 286.91, based on the infant's visual function. Incremental cost per QALY gained was US $1,746.99/QALY per infant screened with the combination strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis resulted in cost-effectiveness for all parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded a 100% probability of combination being cost-effective in a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $1,800/QALY. Conclusion: The combined strategy for ROP screening was cost-effective. It enhances access for appropriate ROP care in middle-income countries and dminishes opportunity costs for ophthalmologists.