Table 1 Base-case cost-effectiveness and cost-utility results of different screening strategies in urban and rural settings
Cost-utility | Cost-effectiveness | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comparison screening interval for ICER calculation | |||||||||
Costs per person, $ | QALYs per person | Incremental costs per 100,000 people screened, $ | Incremental QALYs per 100,000 people screened | ICURs (95% CI), $ | Years of blindness per person | Years of blindness avoided per 100,000 people screened | ICERs (95% CI), $ | ||
Urban | |||||||||
No screening | \ | 2236 | 14.31732 | \ | \ | \ | 0.40993 | \ | \ |
Telescreening | No screening | 2215 | 14.33164 | −2,099,312 | 1433 | Dominating | 0.39921 | 1073 | Dominating |
AI screening | No screening | 2197 | 14.33589 | −3,806,182 | 1858 | Dominating | 0.39605 | 1389 | Dominating |
DH screening | No screening | 2189 | 14.33654 | −4,628,416 | 1923 | Dominating | 0.39556 | 1438 | Dominating |
Telescreening | \ | \ | −2,529,104 | 490 | Dominating | \ | 365 | Dominating | |
AI screening | \ | \ | −822,234 | 65 | Dominating | \ | 49 | Dominating | |
Rural | |||||||||
No screening | \ | 2913 | 13.65998 | \ | \ | \ | 0.56266 | \ | \ |
Telescreening | No screening | 2806 | 13.70500 | −10,708,193 | 4503 | Dominating | 0.52060 | 4205 | Dominating |
AI screening | No screening | 2750 | 13.71655 | −16,372,083 | 5658 | Dominating | 0.50991 | 5275 | Dominating |
DH screening | No screening | 2737 | 13.71855 | −17,608,255 | 5857 | Dominating | 0.50804 | 5462 | Dominating |
Telescreening | \ | \ | −6,900,061 | 1354 | Dominating | \ | 1256 | Dominating | |
AI screening | \ | \ | −1,236,171 | 199 | Dominating | \ | 187 | Dominating |