Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 May;63(5):789-97.
doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.12.012. Epub 2014 Feb 12.

Cost-effectiveness of primary screening for CKD: a systematic review

Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness of primary screening for CKD: a systematic review

Paul Komenda et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014 May.

Abstract

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health problem with an increasing incidence worldwide. Data on the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in the general population have been conflicting.

Study design: Systematic review.

Setting & population: General, hypertensive, and diabetic populations. No restriction on setting.

Selection criteria for studies: Studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of screening for CKD.

Intervention: Screening for CKD by proteinuria or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Outcomes: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening by proteinuria or eGFR compared with either no screening or usual care.

Results: 9 studies met criteria for inclusion. 8 studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of proteinuria screening and 2 evaluated screening with eGFR. For proteinuria screening, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $14,063-$160,018/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the general population, $5,298-$54,943/QALY in the diabetic population, and $23,028-$73,939/QALY in the hypertensive population. For eGFR screening, one study reported a cost of $23,680/QALY in the diabetic population and the range across the 2 studies was $100,253-$109,912/QALY in the general population. The incidence of CKD, rate of progression, and effectiveness of drug therapy were major drivers of cost-effectiveness.

Limitations: Few studies evaluated screening by eGFR. Performance of a quantitative meta-analysis on influential assumptions was not conducted because of few available studies and heterogeneity in model designs.

Conclusions: Screening for CKD is suggested to be cost-effective in patients with diabetes and hypertension. CKD screening may be cost-effective in populations with higher incidences of CKD, rapid rates of progression, and more effective drug therapy.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness analysis; chronic kidney disease (CKD); estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); proteinuria; public health screening; risk stratification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types