# Cost-effectiveness of novel diagnostic tools for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the United States

## TL;DR

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of new diagnostic tools for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis compared to traditional methods like biopsy.

## Contribution

The study introduces a decision analytic model to compare novel diagnostic strategies for IPF in terms of cost and effectiveness.

## Key findings

- Machine learning algorithms reduced diagnostic costs by $14,876 compared to biopsy-all strategies.
- High treatment costs significantly impact overall cost-effectiveness ratios of diagnostic methods.
- Lower treatment costs could make novel diagnostic tools more cost-effective.

## Abstract

Novel non-invasive machine learning algorithms may improve accuracy and reduce the need for biopsy when diagnosing idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies for IPF.

We developed a decision analytic model to evaluate diagnostic strategies for IPF in the United States. To assess the full spectrum of costs and benefits, we compared four interventions: a machine learning diagnostic algorithm, a genomic classifier, a biopsy-all strategy, and a treat-all strategy. The analysis was conducted from the health sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome measures were costs, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) gained, and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) based on the average of 10,000 probabilistic runs of the model.

Compared to a biopsy-all strategy the machine learning algorithm and genomic classifer reduced diagnostic-related costs by $14,876 and $3,884, respectively. Use of the machine learning algorithm consistently reduced diagnostic costs. When including downstream treatment costs and benefits of anti-fibrotic treatment, the machine learning algorithm had an ICER of $331,069 per QALY gained compared to the biopsy-all strategy. The genomic classifier had a higher ICER of $390,043 per QALY gained, while the treat-all strategy had the highest ICER of $3,245,403 per QALY gained. Results were sensitive to changes in various input parameters including IPF treatment costs, sensitivity and specificity of novel screening tools, and the rate of additional diagnostics following inconclusive results. High treatment costs were found to drive overall cost regardless of the diagnostic method. As treatment costs lowered, the supplemental diagnostic tools became increasingly cost-effective.

Novel tools for diagnosing IPF reduced diagnostic costs, while overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were high due to treatment costs. New IPF diagnosis approaches may become more favourable with lower-cost treatments for IPF.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-025-12506-1.