IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0262227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of the simulation-based German albuminuria screening model (S-GASM) for estimating the cost-effectiveness of albuminuria screening in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Kairys
  • Thomas Frese
  • Paul Voigt
  • Johannes Horn
  • Matthias Girndt
  • Rafael Mikolajczyk

Abstract

Background: Chronic kidney disease is often asymptomatic in its early stages but constitutes a severe burden for patients and causes major healthcare systems costs worldwide. While models for assessing the cost-effectiveness of screening were proposed in the past, they often presented only a limited view. This study aimed to develop a simulation-based German Albuminuria Screening Model (S-GASM) and present some initial applications. Methods: The model consists of an individual-based simulation of disease progression, considering age, gender, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, albuminuria, glomerular filtration rate, and quality of life, furthermore, costs of testing, therapy, and renal replacement therapy with parameters based on published evidence. Selected screening scenarios were compared in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: Compared to no testing, a simulation of 10 million individuals with a current age distribution of the adult German population and a follow-up until death or the age of 90 shows that a testing of all individuals with diabetes every two years leads to a reduction of the lifetime prevalence of renal replacement therapy from 2.5% to 2.3%. The undiscounted costs of this intervention would be 1164.10 € / QALY (quality-adjusted life year). Considering saved costs for renal replacement therapy, the overall undiscounted costs would be—12581.95 € / QALY. Testing all individuals with diabetes or hypertension and screening the general population reduced the lifetime prevalence even further (to 2.2% and 1.8%, respectively). Both scenarios were cost-saving (undiscounted, - 7127.10 €/QALY and—5439.23 €/QALY). Conclusions: The S-GASM can be used for the comparison of various albuminuria testing strategies. The exemplary analysis demonstrates cost savings through albuminuria testing for individuals with diabetes, diabetes or hypertension, and for population-wide screening.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Kairys & Thomas Frese & Paul Voigt & Johannes Horn & Matthias Girndt & Rafael Mikolajczyk, 2022. "Development of the simulation-based German albuminuria screening model (S-GASM) for estimating the cost-effectiveness of albuminuria screening in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0262227
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262227
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262227&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0262227?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel M. Sugrue & Thomas Ward & Sukhvir Rai & Phil McEwan & Heleen G. M. Haalen, 2019. "Economic Modelling of Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Literature Review to Inform Conceptual Model Design," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(12), pages 1451-1468, December.
    2. Oguzhan Alagoz & Heather Hsu & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2010. "Markov Decision Processes: A Tool for Sequential Decision Making under Uncertainty," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 474-483, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eike Nohdurft & Elisa Long & Stefan Spinler, 2017. "Was Angelina Jolie Right? Optimizing Cancer Prevention Strategies Among BRCA Mutation Carriers," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 139-169, September.
    2. Malek Ebadi & Raha Akhavan-Tabatabaei, 2021. "Personalized Cotesting Policies for Cervical Cancer Screening: A POMDP Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Jesse G. Wales & Alexander J. Zolan & William T. Hamilton & Alexandra M. Newman & Michael J. Wagner, 2023. "Combining simulation and optimization to derive operating policies for a concentrating solar power plant," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 45(1), pages 119-150, March.
    4. F. R. Rolli & M. Ruggeri & F. Kheiraoui & C. Drago & M. Basile & C. Favaretti & A. Cicchetti, 2018. "Economic evaluation of Zepatier for the management of HCV in the Italian scenario," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1365-1374, December.
    5. Maryam Alimohammadi & W. Art Chaovalitwongse & Hubert J. Vesselle & Shengfan Zhang, 2023. "Utilizing Clinical Trial Data to Assess Timing of Surgical Treatment for Emphysema Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 110-124, January.
    6. Nazila Bazrafshan & M. M. Lotfi, 2020. "A finite-horizon Markov decision process model for cancer chemotherapy treatment planning: an application to sequential treatment decision making in clinical trials," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 295(1), pages 483-502, December.
    7. Ting-Yu Ho & Shan Liu & Zelda B. Zabinsky, 2019. "A Multi-Fidelity Rollout Algorithm for Dynamic Resource Allocation in Population Disease Management," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 727-755, December.
    8. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2012. "Confronting Deep Uncertainties in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1607-1629, October.
    9. Kotas, Jakob & Ghate, Archis, 2018. "Bayesian learning of dose–response parameters from a cohort under response-guided dosing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 328-343.
    10. Hershberger, Patricia E. & Gallo, Agatha M. & Kavanaugh, Karen & Olshansky, Ellen & Schwartz, Alan & Tur-Kaspa, Ilan, 2012. "The decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples considering preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Initial findings from a grounded theory study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(10), pages 1536-1543.
    11. Lauren E. Cipriano & Thomas A. Weber, 2018. "Population-level intervention and information collection in dynamic healthcare policy," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 604-631, December.
    12. Sun, Qirun & Wu, Zhi & Gu, Wei & Zhu, Tao & Zhong, Lei & Gao, Ting, 2021. "Flexible expansion planning of distribution system integrating multiple renewable energy sources: An approximate dynamic programming approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0262227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.