16443 0.04804 8,235,431 Model estimators of ICERs were calculated as ¥1,139,399/QALY (US $12,660/QALY) for (a) dipstick test only, ¥8,122,492/QALY (US $90,250/QALY) for (b) serum Cr assay only and ¥8,235,431/QALY (US $91,505/QALY) for (c) dipstick test and serum Cr assay. Cost-effectiveness Table 3 presents the results of cost-effectiveness analysis. Regarding the status this website quo that 40% of insurers implement dipstick test only and 60% implement dipstick test and serum Cr assay, 2,837 patients out of 100,000 participants are screened, with average cost of screening and renal disease care per person of ¥2,365,798 (US $212,922) during average survival of 16.14777 QALY. Taking policy 1 that 40% of insurers currently
using dipstick test only start use of serum Cr assay screens more patients (3,898). It costs more, but it gains more. Its incremental cost is ¥155,347 (US $1,726), and its incremental effectiveness is 0.01666 QALY (6.081 quality-adjusted life days), resulting in ICER of ¥9,325,663/QALY (US $103,618/QALY). Taking policy 2 that 40% of insurers currently using dipstick test only start use of serum Cr assay and abandon dipstick test screens more patients (3,448) compared with the status quo as well. It also costs more, but it gains more. Its incremental cost is ¥149,694 (US $1,663), and its incremental effectiveness is 0.01663 QALY (6.070 quality-adjusted life days),
resulting in ICER of ¥9,001,414/QALY (US $100,016/QALY). Table 3 Results of cost-effectiveness analysis No. of patients per 100,000 participants AZ 628 research buy Cost (¥) Incremental cost (¥) Effectiveness (QALY) Incremental effectiveness (QALY) Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (¥/QALY) Status quo 2,837 2,365,798 16.14777 Policy 1: requiring serum Cr assay 3,898 2,521,145 155,347 16.16443 0.01666 9,325,663 Policy 2: requiring serum
Cr assay and abandoning dipstick test 3,448 2,515,492 149,694 16.16440 0.01663 9,001,414 Stability of cost-effectiveness One-way sensitivity analyses produce similar results not only between policy 1 and policy 2 but also among three model estimators of ICER. Therefore, we present a selleck compound Tornado diagram of policy 1 as an example in Fig. 2. Ten variables with large change of ICER are depicted. A threshold to judge cost-effectiveness is also Calpain drawn, which is according to World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendation, being three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita [36]. Its value is ¥11.5 million/QALY (US $128 thousand/QALY) gain in 2009 in Japan. Fig. 2 Tornado diagram of policy 1. This tornado diagram shows ten variables which are found to be sensitive to the change in assumptions. Ten variables are presented, ordered according to the size of the change of ICER from top to bottom. The change of ICERs is represented by white bars when increasing the variable or by black bars when decreasing the variable from base-case value. The threshold to judge cost-effectiveness is 3 × GDP per capita (¥11.