Kidney Function » Thomas J. Hoerger, John S. Wittenborn, Joel E. Segel, Nilka R. Burrows, Kumiko Imai, Paul Eggers, Meda E. Pavkov, Regina Jordan, Susan M. Hailpern, Anton C. Schoolwerth, Desmond E. Williams, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CKD Initiative

A Health Policy Model of CKD: 1. Model Construction, Assumptions, and Validation of Health Consequences – Corrected Proof

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:00:00 +0000

Background: A cost-effectiveness model that accurately represents disease progression, outcomes, and associated costs is necessary to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for chronic kidney disease (CKD).Study Design: We developed a microsimulation model of the incidence, progression, and treatment of CKD. The model was validated by comparing its predictions with survey and epidemiologic data sources.Setting & Population: US patients.Model, Perspective, & Timeframe: The model follows up disease progression in a cohort of simulated patients aged 30 until age 90 years or death. The model consists of 7 mutually exclusive states representing no CKD, 5 stages of CKD, and death. Progression through the stages is governed by a person’s glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria status. Diabetes, hypertension, and other risk factors influence CKD and the development of CKD complications in the model. Costs are evaluated from the health care system perspective.Intervention: Usual care, including incidental screening for persons with diabetes or hypertension.Outcomes: Progression to CKD stages, complications, and mortality.Results: The model provides reasonably accurate estimates of CKD prevalence by stage. The model predicts that 47.1% of 30-year-olds will develop CKD during their lifetime, with 1.7%, 6.9%, 27.3%, 6.9%, and 4.4% ending at stages 1-5, respectively. Approximately 11% of persons who reach stage 3 will eventually progress to stage 5. The model also predicts that 3.7% of persons will develop end-stage renal disease compared with an estimate of 3.0% based on current end-stage renal disease lifetime incidence.Limitations: The model synthesizes data from multiple sources rather than a single source and relies on explicit assumptions about progression. The model does not include acute kidney failure.Conclusion: The model is well validated and can be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CKD interventions. The model also can be updated as better data for CKD progression become available.

A Health Policy Model of CKD: 2. The Cost-Effectiveness of Microalbuminuria Screening – Corrected Proof

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:00:00 +0000

Background: Microalbuminuria screening may detect chronic kidney disease in its early stages, allowing for treatment that delays or prevents disease progression. The cost-effectiveness of microalbuminuria screening has not been determined.Study Design: A cost-effectiveness model simulating disease progression and costs.Setting & Population: US patients.Model, Perspective, and Timeframe: The microsimulation model follows up disease progression and costs in a cohort of simulated patients from age 50 to 90 years or death. Costs are evaluated from the health care system perspective.Intervention: Microalbuminuria screening at 1-, 2-, 5-, or 10-year intervals followed by treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers. We considered universal screening, as well as screening targeted at persons with diabetes, persons with hypertension but no diabetes, and persons with neither diabetes nor hypertension.Outcomes: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.Results: For the full model population, universal screening increases costs and increases QALYs. Universal annual screening starting at age 50 years has a cost-effectiveness ratio of $73,000/QALY relative to no screening and $145,000/QALY relative to usual care. Cost-effectiveness ratios improved with longer screening intervals. Relative to no screening, targeted annual screening has cost-effectiveness ratios of $21,000/QALY, $55,000/QALY, and $155,000/QALY for persons with diabetes, those with hypertension, and those with neither current diabetes nor current hypertension, respectively.Limitations: Results necessarily are based on a microsimulation model because of the long time horizon appropriate for chronic kidney disease. The model includes only health care costs.Conclusions: Microalbuminuria screening is cost-effective for patients with diabetes or hypertension, but is not cost-effective for patients with neither diabetes nor hypertension unless screening is conducted at longer intervals or as part of existing physician visits.