A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Conducted for Interventions to Screen, Treat, and Manage Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada

ABSTRACT

Purpose

A systematic literature review (SLR) of economic evaluations (EE) conducted for interventions to screen, treat, and manage retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Canada was performed.

Methods

The SLR accessed the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Health Business Elite, Econ. Lit, NHS EED, and Google Scholar databases over the period 1^st January 2000 to 4^th August 2021. The key Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms used included: Retinopathy of prematurity, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Cost-utility analysis, Cost of illness, Cost-benefit analysis, Cost minimization analysis, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, Quality adjusted life years, return on investment, burden of illness, disability adjusted life years, and Economic evaluation. Screening was conducted using Covidence, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Data extraction was performed using MS Excel.

Results

1,527 articles were examined with nine (9) papers identified, one (1) from the UK; two (2) from Canada and six (6) from the US. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the main form of EE conducted (n = 5) and telemedicine screening (n = 3) was found to be highly cost-effective for ROP with the ICER values ranging from £446 to £4,240 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) in 2021 figures. 73% of included studies complied with the CHEERS checklist for EE.

Conclusions

ROP screening and treatment strategies reviewed were highly cost-effective. This review may assist eye health policymakers in planning nationwide screening and treatment programs to combat vision loss and blindness due to ROP.

KEYWORDS:

• Retinopathy of prematurity
• economic evaluations
• cost-effectiveness analysis

Disclosure statement

AFS and AS were employees of MedMetrics Inc., while EK and VB had no disclosures or conflicts of interest to report.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2022.2084757

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.