Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on January 8, 2007
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2008 23(4):1103-1106; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfl756
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/4/1103    most recent
gfl756v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Postma, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Gansevoort, R. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Postma, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Gansevoort, R. T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


Pharmacoeconomics in nephrology: considerations on cost-effectiveness of screening for albuminuria

Maarten J. Postma1, Cornelis Boersma2 and Ron T. Gansevoort2

1 University of Groningen, Department of Social Pharmacy & Pharmacoepidemiology 2 University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, The Netherlands

Maarten J. Postma, University of Groningen, Department of Social Pharmacy & Pharmacoepidemiology, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. Email: m.j.postma@rug.nl

Keywords: albuminuria; cost-effectiveness; pharmacoeconomics; RAAS-intervening agents

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.



   Introduction
 
In this issue, Palmer et al. [1] demonstrate that screening for nephropathy in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients and subsequent treatment with renoprotective antihypertensive agents may result in excellent value for money from the US health care perspective. Estimated costs and effects were combined in a cost-utility analysis, to express the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for add-on treatment of the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) irbesartan after detection of nephropathy through screening, compared with conventional antihypertensive treatment only, in the absence of screening. Nephropathy was defined as microalbuminuria or nephropathy; i.e. urine albumin excretion (UAE) >20 µg/min (corresponding to a UAE expressed per 24 h > 30 mg/24 h, with >300 mg/24 h generally defining nephropathy). Such screening and subsequent ARB treatment—add on to conventional antihypertensive therapy—was estimated to result in favourable clinical outcomes with only marginally increasing overall costs. Furthermore, estimated incremental cost-effectiveness was . . . [Full Text of this Article]



   How to conduct a pharmacoeconomic analysis?
 


   Cost-effectiveness of RAAS-intervening agents in type 2 diabetic patients
 


   Cost-effectiveness of screening in the general population
 


   Conclusion
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
M. J. Postma and D. de Zeeuw
The economic benefits of preventing end-stage renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., October 1, 2009; 24(10): 2975 - 2983.
[Full Text] [PDF]