Search

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of blood pressure (BP) screening strategies, including 1) home blood pressure measurement (HBPM), (2) serial screening by CBPM followed by HBPM among individuals with high BP i.e., clinic BP ≥140/90 mmHg (Serial1), (3) serial screening by CBPM followed by HBPM among individuals without high BP i.e., clinic blood pressure <140/90 mmHg (Serial2) compared to CBPM alone. A Markov model was applied among Thai population aged 35 years who had not been previously diagnosed with hypertension (HT) during a lifetime horizon with one-year cycle length from a societal perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation with 1,000 replications were performed. The total cost of Serial2 (118,283 baht) was the highest and followed by HBPM (110,767 baht), CBPM (110,588 baht) and Serial1 (78,310 baht). The total quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for the population undergoing BP screening with CBPM, HBPM, Serial1, and Serial2 were 22.1557, 22.1511, 22.1286, and 22.1564, respectively. Compared to CBPM, Serial1 was associated with an incremental cost saving of 32,278 and an incremental QALY loss of 0.0271, whereas HBPM was dominated by CBPM due to higher cost (179 baht) and fewer QALY (-0.0046). Additionally, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Serial2 was the highest (10,992,000 baht per QALY gained). Moreover, the incidence rate of HT among individuals at age 40-49 years was the most sensitive factor influencing the ICER of HBPM, Serial1 and Serial2. At the Thai societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 160,000 baht per QALY gained, the cost saving associated with Serial1 outweighed the QALY loss. Therefore, it is recommended that Serial1 be implemented as a BP screening option in Thailand. This evidence informed policy information could be invaluable for policymakers in making decision regarding BP screening through village health volunteer mechanism in Thailand and similar settings., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Karnjanapiboonwong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Hypertension is one of the largest contributors to the disease burden and a major economic challenge for health-care systems. Early detection of persons with high blood pressure can be achieved through screening and has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an opportunistic hypertension screening programme in a dental-care facility for individuals aged 40-75 in comparison to care as usual (the no-screening baseline scenario)., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was carried out from the payer and societal perspectives, and the short-term (from screening until diagnosis has been established) cost per identified case of hypertension and long-term (20 years) cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were reported. Data on the short-term cost were based on a real-world screening programme in which 2025 healthy individuals were screened for hypertension. Data on the long-term cost were based on the short-term outcomes combined with modelling in a Markov cohort model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess uncertainty., Results: The short-term analysis showed an additional cost of 4,800 SEK (€470) per identified case of hypertension from the payer perspective and from the societal perspective 12,800 SEK (€1,240). The long-term analysis showed a payer cost per QALY of 2.2 million SEK (€210,000) and from the societal perspective 2.8 million SEK per QALY (€270,000)., Conclusion: The long-term model results showed that the screening model is unlikely to be cost-effective in a country with a well-developed health-care system and a relatively low prevalence of hypertension., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Uncontrolled hypertension is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease. A cluster-randomized trial in 16 primary care clinics showed that 12 months of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management lowered blood pressure more than usual care (UC) for 24 months. We report cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalized heart failure, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death) and costs over 5 years of follow-up. In the telemonitoring intervention (TI group, n=228), there were 15 cardiovascular events (5 myocardial infarction, 4 stroke, 5 heart failure, 1 cardiovascular death) among 10 patients. In UC group (n=222), there were 26 events (11 myocardial infarction, 12 stroke, 3 heart failure) among 19 patients. The cardiovascular composite end point incidence was 4.4% in the TI group versus 8.6% in the UC group (odds ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.21-1.13], P =0.09). Including 2 coronary revascularizations in the TI group and 10 in the UC group, the secondary cardiovascular composite end point incidence was 5.3% in the TI group versus 10.4% in the UC group (odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.22-1.08], P =0.08). Microsimulation modeling showed the difference in events far exceeded predictions based on observed blood pressure. Intervention costs (in 2017 US dollars) were $1511 per patient. Over 5 years, estimated event costs were $758 000 in the TI group and $1 538 000 in the UC group for a return on investment of 126% and a net cost savings of about $1900 per patient. Telemonitoring with pharmacist management lowered blood pressure and may have reduced costs by avoiding cardiovascular events over 5 years. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00781365.

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) leads to significant morbidity and mortality and imposes a large economic burden. Although there have been several advances in HF monitoring and management, HF-rehospitalization remains a significant problem. Remote monitoring of HF to detect early signs of decompensation has emerged in past years as an option to prevent or reduce the incidence of HF rehospitalization. The CardioMEMS TM HF system is a wireless pulmonary artery (PA) pressure monitoring system that detects changes in PA pressure and transmits data to the healthcare provider. Since changes in PA pressure happen early in the course of HF decompensation, the CardioMEMS TM system allows the provider to institute timely intensification of HF therapies to alter the course. In trial and registry data, the use of the CardioMEMS TM HF system has been associated with reduction in HF hospitalization, improvement in quality of life, symptoms, and physical activity., Areas Covered: This review will focus on the available data supporting its utilization in patients with HF., Expert Opinion: CardioMEMS TM is relatively safe and cost-effective, reduces heart failure hospitalization rates, and fits into intermediate to high-value medical care.

Use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is strongly endorsed by contemporary hypertension guidelines. The objective of this study was to assess patient perceptions of ambulatory blood pressure testing, tolerability, accessibility, and expense. A convenience sample of 50, consenting patients undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic in Edmonton, Canada was studied. A 16-item structured questionnaire was administered in person or electronically. Questions regarding the tolerability of ambulatory monitoring were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale and wait times, expenditures, and willingness to pay were evaluated by direct questioning. Mean age was 53.1 ± 15.4 years, 32 (64%) were female, and 23 (46%) were employed. Mean 24-hour ambulatory BP was 134 ± 12/79 ± 8 mmHg. Ambulatory monitoring caused discomfort in 40 (80%) patients and disturbed sleep in 39 (78%). Forty-one (82%) patients perceived that the home (vs pharmacy, primary care clinic, and speciality care clinic) would be the easiest venue to access future testing. On average, patients waited 27.3 ± 23.7 days for testing; they felt that a wait time of 21.3 ± 12.3 days was appropriate. Mean time taken off work was 8.6 ± 10.8 hours. Twelve (24%) patients indicated that they would be willing to pay out-of-pocket to undergo testing sooner, at a mean expenditure of $120 ± 69. Nineteen (62%) patients were willing to buy a monitor and felt that a mean purchase cost of $125 ± 89 was appropriate. These findings extend current knowledge of patient perceptions of ambulatory monitoring and may help to refine and optimize future delivery of this essential test., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is considered the best means of diagnosing hypertension. However, it is rarely used and is reimbursed only under narrow conditions. We sought to gain insight into the perceived value of ABPM among stakeholders who responded to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) request for comments to inform the first revision of ABPM reimbursement policy in over 15 years. We found that most comments were classifiable in two main themes, current coverage and future coverage. Individuals and institutions representing multiple disciplines and specialties were highly supportive of expanding the current CMS coverage of ABPM, including for a wide range of clinical indications and populations. It is clear from the comments reviewed that there is wide support for expanding CMS coverage for ABPM. Broad support for a change in ABPM reimbursement policy may lead to changes in the way this technology is used in the United States., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: Pregnant women faced with complications of pregnancy often require long-term hospital admission for maternal and/or fetal monitoring. Antenatal admissions cause a burden to patients as well as hospital resources and costs. A telemonitoring platform connected to wireless cardiotocography (CTG) and automated blood pressure (BP) devices can be used for telemonitoring in pregnancy. Home telemonitoring might improve autonomy and reduce admissions and thus costs. The aim of this study is to compare the effects on patient safety, satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of ho spital care versus tel emonitoring (HOTEL) as an obstetric care strategy in high-risk pregnancies requiring daily monitoring., Methods and Analysis: The HOTEL trial is an ongoing multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial with a non-inferiority design. Eligible pregnant women are >26+0 weeks of singleton gestation requiring monitoring because of pre-eclampsia (hypertension with proteinuria), fetal growth restriction, preterm rupture of membranes without contractions, recurrent reduced fetal movements or an intrauterine fetal death in a previous pregnancy.Randomisation takes place between traditional hospitalisation (planned n=208) versus telemonitoring (planned n=208) until delivery. Telemonitoring at home is facilitated with Sense4Baby CTG devices, Microlife BP monitor and daily telephone calls with an obstetric healthcare professional as well as weekly hospital visits.Primary outcome is a composite of adverse perinatal outcome, defined as perinatal mortality, 5 min Apgar <7 or arterial cord blood pH <7.05, maternal morbidity (eclampsia, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, thromboembolic event), neonatal intensive care admission and caesarean section rate. Patient satisfaction and preference of care will be assessed using validated questionnaires. We will perform an economic analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention to treat principle., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Center and the boards of all six participating centres. Trial results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NTR6076., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Traditional blood-pressure monitoring in hypertensive pregnant women requires frequent visits to the maternity outpatient services. Home blood-pressure monitoring (HBPM) could offer a cost-saving alternative that is acceptable to patients. The aim of this study was to undertake a health economic analysis of HBPM compared with traditional monitoring in hypertensive pregnant women., Methods: This was a cost-minimization study of hypertensive pregnant women who had HBPM with or without the adjunct of a smartphone application (App), via a specially designed pathway, and a control group managed according to the local protocol of regular hospital visits for blood-pressure monitoring. Outcome measures were the number of outpatient visits, inpatient bed stays and investigations performed. Maternal, fetal and neonatal adverse outcomes were also recorded. Health economic analysis was performed using direct cost comparison of the study dataset and process scenario modeling., Results: The HBPM group included 108 women, of whom 29 recorded their results on the smartphone App and 79 in their notes. The control group comprised 58 patients. There were significantly more women with chronic hypertension in the HBPM group than in the control group (49.1% vs 25.9%, P = 0.004). The HBPM group had significantly longer duration of monitoring (9 weeks vs 5 weeks, P = 0.004) and started monitoring at an earlier gestational age (30.0 weeks vs 33.6 weeks, P = 0.001) compared with the control group. Despite these differences, the mean saving per week for each patient using HBPM compared with traditional monitoring was £200.69, while for each HBPM patient using the smartphone App, the weekly saving was £286.53 compared with the control group. The process modeling method predicted weekly savings of between £98.32 and £245.80 per patient using HBPM compared with traditional monitoring., Conclusion: HBPM in hypertensive pregnancy appears to be cost saving compared with traditional monitoring, without compromising maternal, fetal or neonatal safety. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., (Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Previous cost-effectiveness models found ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) to be a favorable strategy to diagnose hypertension; however, they mostly focused on older adults with a positive clinic blood pressure (BP) screen. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 3 methods of BP measurement for hypertension diagnosis in primary care settings among 14 age- and sex-stratified hypothetical cohorts (adults ≥21 years of age), accounting for the possibility of both false-positive (white-coat hypertension) and false-negative (masked hypertension) clinic measurements. We compared quality-adjusted life-years and lifetime costs ($US 2017 from the US healthcare perspective) associated with clinic BP measurement, home BP monitoring, and ABPM under 2 scenarios: positive and negative initial screen. Model parameters were obtained from published literature, publicly available data sources, and expert input. In the screen-positive scenario, ABPM was the dominant strategy among all age and sex groups. Compared with clinic BP measurement, ABPM was associated with cost-savings ranging from $77 (women 80 years of age) to $5013 (women 21 years of age). In the screen-negative scenario, ABPM was the dominant strategy in all men and women <80 years of age with cost-savings ranging from $128 (women 70 years of age) to $2794 (women 21 years of age). Sensitivity analyses showed that results were sensitive to test specificity and antihypertensive medication costs. ABPM is recommended as the diagnostic strategy of choice for most adults in primary care settings regardless of initial screening results.

Objective: To assess the agreement between home blood-pressure monitoring (HBPM) and blood-pressure measurements in a clinic setting, in a cohort of pregnant women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP)., Methods: This was a cohort study of 147 pregnant women with HDP conducted at St George's Hospital, University of London, London, UK, between 2016 and 2017. Inclusion criteria were chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension or high risk of developing pre-eclampsia, no significant proteinuria and no hematological or biochemical abnormalities. Each included patient was prescribed a personalized schedule of hospital visits and blood-pressure measurements, according to their individual risk as per UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The blood-pressure measurement at the clinic and the HBPM reading obtained closest to that hospital visit were paired for analysis. Only one pair of measurements was used per patient. Differences between home and clinic blood-pressure measurements were tested using the Wilcoxon signed rank test or paired t-test, and were also assessed visually using Bland-Altman plots. Comparison of the binary outcomes was performed using McNemar's chi-square test. Subgroup analysis was performed in the following gestational-age windows: < 14 weeks, 15-22 weeks, 23-32 weeks and 33-42 weeks' gestation., Results: A total of 294 blood-pressure measurements from 147 women were included in the analysis. Median systolic HBPM measurements were significantly lower than clinic measurements (132.0 (interquartile range (IQR), 123.0-140.0) mmHg vs 138.0 (IQR, 132.0-146.5) mmHg; P < 0.001). When stratified according to gestational age, systolic blood-pressure measurements obtained at home were significantly lower than those at clinic in all gestational-age periods except 23-32 weeks' gestation (P = 0.057). Median diastolic blood-pressure measurements at home were also significantly lower than those at clinic (85.0 (IQR, 77.0-90.0) mmHg vs 89.0 (IQR, 82.0-94.0) mmHg; P < 0.001). When stratified according to gestational age, diastolic HBPM measurements were significantly lower in the periods 5-14 weeks (P < 0.001), 15-22 weeks (P = 0.008) and 33-42 weeks (P < 0.001), compared with clinic measurements. The incidence of clinically significant systolic and diastolic hypertension based on clinic blood-pressure measurements was four to five times higher than that based on HBPM measurements (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005, respectively)., Conclusions: Our study shows that, in women with HDP, blood pressure measured at home is lower than that measured in a clinic setting. This is consistent with observations in non-pregnant adults, in whom home and ambulatory monitoring of hypertensive patients is recommended. As such, HBPM has the potential to reduce the number of false-positive diagnoses of severe hypertension and unnecessary medical interventions in women with HDP. This must be carefully weighed against the risk of missing true-positive diagnoses. Prospective studies investigating the use of HBPM in pregnant women are urgently needed to determine the relevant blood-pressure thresholds for HBPM, and interval and frequency of monitoring. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., (Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Home blood pressure monitoring provides multiple measurements in the usual environment of each individual, allows the detection of intermediate hypertension phenotypes (white-coat and masked hypertension), and appears to have superior prognostic value compared to the conventional office blood pressure measurements. Accumulating evidence suggests that home blood pressure monitoring improves long-term hypertension control rates. Moreover, it is widely available, relatively inexpensive, and well accepted by patients. Thus, current guidelines recommend home blood pressure monitoring as an essential method for the evaluation of almost all untreated and treated patients with suspected or treated hypertension. Validated automated upper-arm cuff devices with automated storage and averaging of readings should be used. The home blood pressure monitoring schedule for 4 to 7 days with exclusion of the first day (12-24 readings) should be averaged to provide values for decision making., (©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Clinical guidelines in the United States and United Kingdom recommend that individuals with suspected hypertension should have ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring to confirm the diagnosis. This approach reduces misdiagnosis because of white coat hypertension but will not identify people with masked hypertension who may benefit from treatment. The Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm predicts masked and white coat hypertension based on patient characteristics and clinic BP, improving the accuracy of diagnosis while limiting subsequent ambulatory BP monitoring. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of using this tool in diagnosing hypertension in primary care. A Markov cost-utility cohort model was developed to compare diagnostic strategies: the PROOF-BP approach, including those with clinic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg who receive ambulatory BP monitoring as guided by the algorithm, compared with current standard diagnostic strategies including those with clinic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg combined with further monitoring (ambulatory BP monitoring as reference, clinic, and home monitoring also assessed). The model adopted a lifetime horizon with a 3-month time cycle, taking a UK Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective. The PROOF-BP algorithm was cost-effective in screening all patients with clinic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg compared with current strategies that only screen those with clinic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg, provided healthcare providers were willing to pay up to £20 000 ($26 000)/quality-adjusted life year gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case findings. The PROOF-BP algorithm seems to be cost-effective compared with the conventional BP diagnostic options in primary care. Its use in clinical practice is likely to lead to reduced cardiovascular disease, death, and disability., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Introduction and Objectives: The prevalence of hypertension in Portugal is between 29.1% and 42.2%. International studies show that 13% of individuals have masked hypertension and 13% of diagnoses based on office blood pressure measurements are in fact white coat hypertension. More sensitive and specific blood pressure measuring methods could avoid costs associated with misdiagnosis. The aim of this study was to review the cost-effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) compared to other methods in the management of hypertension., Methods: We performed a literature search in CMA Infobase, Guidelines Finder, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Bandolier, BMJ Clinical Evidence, the Cochrane Library, DARE, Medline, the Trip Database, SUMSearch and Índex das Revistas Médicas Portuguesas. We researched articles published between January 2005 and August 2015 in Portuguese, English and Spanish, using the MeSH terms "Hypertension", "Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory" and "Cost-Benefit Analysis" and the Portuguese search terms "Hipertensão", "Monitorização Ambulatorial da Pressão Arterial" and "Análise Custo-Benefício". Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation were attributed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine scale., Results: Five hundred and twenty-five articles were identified. We included five original studies and one clinical practice guideline. All of them state that ABPM is the most cost-effective method. Two report better blood pressure control, and a Portuguese study revealed a saving of 23%., Conclusions: The evidence shows that ABPM is cost-effective, avoiding iatrogenic effects and reducing expenditure on treatment (grade of recommendation B). The included studies provide a solid basis, but further evidence of reproducibility is needed in research that is not based mainly on analytical models., (Copyright © 2016 Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a draft recommendation to utilize 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension after screening. However, ABPM can be inconvenient and has some adverse effects such as pain and bruising from the repeated cuff inflations. In this national survey, we asked adults 30 years and older how much physical discomfort they would be willing to undergo to have the most accurate test available for evaluating possible high BP. We also asked how much they would be willing to pay to have the test. Among 1010 respondents, 95% of participants indicated willingness to undergo at least mild physical discomfort. The median amount people would be willing to pay was $25. These findings suggest that people are willing to undergo a bit of discomfort, and even pay a small amount, for the benefit of accurate BP assessment., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the CardioMEMS (CardioMEMS Heart Failure System, St Jude Medical Inc, Atlanta, Georgia) device in patients with chronic heart failure., Background: The CardioMEMS device, an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor, was shown to reduce hospitalizations for heart failure and improve quality of life in the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients) trial., Methods: We developed a Markov model to determine the hospitalization, survival, quality of life, cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CardioMEMS implantation compared with usual care among a CHAMPION trial cohort of patients with heart failure. We obtained event rates and utilities from published trial data; we used costs from literature estimates and Medicare reimbursement data. We performed subgroup analyses of preserved and reduced ejection fraction and an exploratory analysis in a lower-risk cohort on the basis of the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) trials., Results: CardioMEMS reduced lifetime hospitalizations (2.18 vs. 3.12), increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (2.74 vs. 2.46), and increased costs ($176,648 vs. $156,569), thus yielding a cost of $71,462 per QALY gained and $48,054 per life-year gained. The cost per QALY gained was $82,301 in patients with reduced ejection fraction and $47,768 in those with preserved ejection fraction. In the lower-risk CHARM cohort, the device would need to reduce hospitalizations for heart failure by 41% to cost <$100,000 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the device's durability., Conclusions: In populations similar to that of the CHAMPION trial, the CardioMEMS device is cost-effective if the trial effectiveness is sustained over long periods. Post-marketing surveillance data on durability will further clarify its value., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Black and Hispanic stroke survivors experience higher rates of recurrent stroke than whites. This disparity is partly explained by disproportionately higher rates of uncontrolled hypertension in these populations. Home blood pressure telemonitoring (HBPTM) and nurse case management (NCM) have proven efficacy in addressing the multilevel barriers to blood pressure (BP) control and reducing BP. However, the effectiveness of these interventions has not been evaluated in stroke patients. This study is designed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and sustainability of these two telehealth interventions in reducing BP and recurrent stroke among high-risk Black and Hispanic stroke survivors with uncontrolled hypertension., Methods/design: A total of 450 Black and Hispanic patients with recent nondisabling stroke and uncontrolled hypertension are randomly assigned to one of two 12-month interventions: 1) HBPTM with wireless feedback to primary care providers or 2) HBPTM plus individualized, culturally-tailored, telephone-based NCM. Patients are recruited from stroke centers and primary care practices within the Health and Hospital Corporations (HHC) Network in New York City. Study visits occur at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. The primary outcomes are within-patient change in systolic BP at 12 months, and the rate of stroke recurrence at 24 months. The secondary outcome is the comparative cost-effectiveness of the interventions at 12 and 24 months; and exploratory outcomes include changes in stroke risk factors, health behaviors and treatment intensification. Recruitment for the stroke telemonitoring hypertension trial is currently ongoing., Discussion: The combination of two established and effective interventions along with the utilization of health information technology supports the sustainability of the HBPTM + NCM intervention and feasibility of its widespread implementation. Results of this trial will provide strong empirical evidence to inform clinical guidelines for management of stroke in minority stroke survivors with uncontrolled hypertension. If effective among Black and Hispanic stroke survivors, these interventions have the potential to substantially mitigate racial and ethnic disparities in stroke recurrence., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02011685 . Registered 10 December 2013.

Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring has been shown to be more effective than clinic BP monitoring for diagnosing and treating hypertension. However, reimbursement of home BP monitoring is uncommon in the United States because of a lack of evidence that it is cost beneficial for insurers. We develop a decision-analytic model, which we use to conduct a cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the insurer. Model inputs are derived from the 2008 to 2011 claims data of a private health insurer in the United States, from 2009 to 2010 National Health and the Nutrition Examination Survey data, and from published meta-analyses. The model simulates the transitions among health states from initial physician visit to hypertension diagnosis, to treatment, to hypertension-related cardiovascular diseases, and patient death or resignation from the plan. We use the model to estimate cost-benefit ratios and both short- and long-run return on investment for home BP monitoring compared with clinic BP monitoring. Our results suggest that reimbursement of home BP monitoring is cost beneficial from an insurer's perspective for diagnosing and treating hypertension. Depending on the insurance plan and age group categories considered, estimated net savings associated with the use of home BP monitoring range from $33 to $166 per member in the first year and from $415 to $1364 in the long run (10 years). Return on investment ranges from $0.85 to $3.75 per dollar invested in the first year and from $7.50 to $19.34 per dollar invested in the long run., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objectives: To evaluate the health system cost of a home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) program versus usual care in an integrated healthcare system., Study Design: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based upon a previously completed randomized controlled trial of 348 hypertensive patients, in which mean systolic blood pressure (BP) was lowered 21 versus 8 mm Hg in the HBPM and usual care groups, respectively, and BP control was achieved in 54% versus 35% of patients (P < .001)., Methods: This analysis compared direct costs from the health plan perspective, including clinic visits, e-mail and telephone encounters, laboratory tests, medications, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits between the 2 groups. Primary outcomes were the incremental hypertension care-related cost of HBPM per mm Hg lowering of systolic BP per patient, per additional BP controlled, and per life-year gained., Results: Median hypertension-related cost per patient over 6 months was $455 in the HBPM group and $179 for usual care (P < .001). This increase was attributable to additional e-mail and telephone encounters, greater antihypertensive medication use, additional laboratory monitoring, and the BP monitor. Median total cost per patient was $1530 and $1283 for the HBPM and usual care groups, respectively (P = .034). The HBPM program increased hypertension-related expenditures by $20.50 per mm Hg lowering of systolic BP, $1331 per additional patient achieving BP control at 6 months, and $3330 per life-year gained., Conclusions: The HBPM program requires investment in outpatient encounters, medications, and laboratory monitoring, but produces significantly improved BP control.

Background: Web-based collaborative approaches to managing chronic illness show promise for both improving health outcomes and increasing the efficiency of the healthcare system., Objective: Analyze the cost-effectiveness of the Electronic Communications and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring to Improve Blood Pressure Control (e-BP) study, a randomized controlled trial that used a patient-shared electronic medical record, home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, and web-based pharmacist care to improve BP control (<140/90 mm Hg)., Study Design: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from a health plan perspective., Methods: Cost-effectiveness of home BP monitoring and web-based pharmacist care estimated for percent change in patients with controlled BP and cost per mm Hg in diastolic and systolic BP relative to usual care and home BP monitoring alone., Results: A 1% improvement in number of patients with controlled BP using home BP monitoring and web-based pharmacist care-the e-BP program-costs $16.65 (95% confidence interval: 15.37- 17.94) relative to home BP monitoring and web training alone. Each mm HG reduction in systolic and diastolic BP achieved through the e-BP program costs $65.29 (59.91-70.67) relativeto home BP monitoring and web tools only. Life expectancy was increased at an incremental cost of $1850 (1635-2064) and $2220 (1745-2694) per year of life saved for men and women, respectively., Conclusions: Web-based collaborative care can be used to achieve BP control at a relatively low cost. Future research should examine the cost impact of potential long-term clinical improvements.

Background: Hypertensive patients (HTs) are usually attended in primary care (PC). We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and cost-benefit ratio of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in all newly diagnosed hypertensive patients (HTs) attended in PC., Methods: In a cross-sectional study ABPM was recorded in all 336 never treated HTs (Office BP ≥140 and/or ≥ 90 mm Hg) that were admitted during 16 months. Since benefits from drug treatment in white-coat hypertension (WCH) remain unproven, a cost benefit estimation of a general use of ABPM (vs absence of ABPM) in HTs was calculated comparing the cost of usual medical assistance of HTs only diagnosed in office with that based both on refraining from drug treatment all subjects identified as WCH and on the reduction by half of the frequency of biochemical exams and doctor visits., Results: Women were 56%, age 51 ± 14 years and BMI 27 ± 4 Kg/m2. Out of these, 206 were considered as true HTs, daytime ABPM ≥ 135 and/or ≥85 mm Hg and 130 (38,7%) were identified as having white coat hypertension (WCH), daytime ABPM <135/85 mm Hg. Versus HTs, WCH group showed higher percentage of women (68% vs 51%) and lower values of an index composed by the association of cardiovascular risk factors. We estimated that with ABPM total medical expenses can be reduced by 23% (157.500 euros) with a strategy based on ABPM for 1000 patients followed for 2 years., Conclusions: In PC, the widespread use of ABPM in newly diagnosed HTs increases diagnostic accuracy of hypertension, improves cardiovascular risk stratification, reduces health expenses showing a highly favourable benefit-cost ratio vs a strategy without ABPM.

Objective: To determine if an intervention consisting of telemonitoring and supervision by usual primary care clinicians of home self measured blood pressure and optional patient decision support leads to clinically important reductions in daytime systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure., Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial., Setting: 20 primary care practices in south east Scotland., Participants: 401 people aged 29-95 years with uncontrolled blood pressure (mean daytime ambulatory measurement ≥ 135/85 mm Hg but ≤ 210/135 mm Hg)., Intervention: Self measurement and transmission of blood pressure readings to a secure website for review by the attending nurse or doctor and participant, with optional automated patient decision support by text or email for six months., Main Outcome Measures: Blinded assessment of mean daytime systolic ambulatory blood pressure six months after randomisation., Results: 200 participants were randomised to the intervention and 201 to usual care; primary outcome data were available for 90% of participants (182 and 177, respectively). The mean difference in daytime systolic ambulatory blood pressure adjusted for baseline and minimisation factors between intervention and usual care was 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 6.5; P=0.0002) and for daytime diastolic ambulatory blood pressure was 2.3 mm Hg (0.9 to 3.6; P=0.001), with higher values in the usual care group. The intervention was associated with a mean increase of one general practitioner (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.6; P=0.0002) and 0.6 (0.1 to 1.0; P=0.01) practice nurse consultations during the course of the study., Conclusions: Supported self monitoring by telemonitoring is an effective method for achieving clinically important reductions in blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in primary care settings. However, it was associated with increase in use of National Health Service resources. Further research is required to determine if the reduction in blood pressure is maintained in the longer term and if the intervention is cost effective., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72614272.

The effect of the first office blood pressure reading (FBPR) on hypertension-related decisions was evaluated using blood pressure (BP) readings taken with the BpTRU BPM-100 device. BP readings were grouped into three pairs: (1) single readings (first and second readings), (2) computed average of three readings (one including and one excluding the first reading), and (3) computed average of five readings (one including and one excluding the first reading). Categorisation of BP readings under JNC-7 classes and distribution into < 140/90 and ≥ 140/90 mmHg groups were selected as parameters guiding hypertension-related decisions. Readings including FBPR had strong positive correlations to those excluding FBPR (Pearson's correlation coefficient ranged from 0.86-1.00). Also, FBPR-included and FBPR-excluded readings did not differ statistically in JNC-7 categorisation or distribution into < 140/90 or ≥ 140/90 mmHg groups. Our findings suggest that exclusion of FBPR may have no significant impact on hypertension-related clinical decisions.

Although the assessment of cardiovascular risk in individual patients takes into account a range of risk factors, the diagnosis and management of hypertension (high blood pressure) is largely determined by a single numerical value, albeit that often several readings are taken over time. Given the critical impact of a decision to embark on lifelong drug therapy, the importance of ensuring that a blood pressure (BP) record is both accurate and representative is clear. However, there is good evidence that the variability of BP is such that even if measurement is of the highest quality, it can be difficult to say with confidence whether a patient is above or below a treatment threshold. This commentary argues that current BP measurement is inadequate to make the clinical decisions that are necessary and that multiple readings are required to deliver an acceptable degree of accuracy for safe decision-making. This is impractical in a doctor's surgery, and the only realistic long-term strategy is to involve the patient in measuring his or her own BP in their own environment. Evidence is presented that such a strategy is better able to predict risk, is cost-effective for diagnosing hypertension, can improve BP control and is thus better able to protect individuals in the future. In this commentary, I explain why doctors and other healthcare professionals should increase their familiarity with the technology, be aware of its strengths and limitations and work with patients as they become more empowered in the management of their chronic condition, hypertension.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring have been shown to be superior to conventional measurement of blood pressure in terms of reproducibility, relationship to the impact of high blood pressure on target organs, and the prediction of cardiovascular events. Nevertheless, these 2 techniques have yet to find their place in the diagnosis of hypertension and during evaluation of the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment. Although these 2 methods do not give identical results in approximately 20% of cases, their diagnostic performance and prognostic value are quite comparable. Although ABPM remains a valuable tool in clinical research, its utilization in routine clinical practice is limited by cost and availability. HBPM is increasingly employed for informed and well-managed patients, and it can help to improve control of the patient's blood pressure. Physicians involved in the management of hypertensive patients should be aware of its value in order to assist patients in their care.

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (class IIa; level of evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of >or=12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed.

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (Class IIa; Level of Evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of >or=12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed.

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (class IIa; level of evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of > or =12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed.

Home monitoring of blood glucose and blood pressure levels can provide patients and physicians with valuable information in the management of diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Home monitoring allows patients to play an active role in their care and may improve treatment adherence and clinical outcomes. Glucose meters currently on the market produce results within 15 percent of serum blood glucose readings and offer a variety of features. Although the data are somewhat conflicting, home glucose monitoring has been associated with improved glycemic control and reduced long-term complications from diabetes. These effects are more pronounced in patients who take insulin. Home blood pressure values predict target organ damage and cardiovascular outcomes better than values obtained in the office. Home blood pressure measurements are also effective at detecting borderline hypertension and monitoring the effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs. Validated arm cuffs are the preferred blood pressure devices for home use. Information from home monitoring should always be used in conjunction with that from regular office visits and other data to make appropriate therapeutic decisions.

Casual blood pressure (CBP) measurements using a standard sphygmomanometer have traditionally constituted the principal modality for the assessment and management of hypertension. However, CBP measurement has shortcomings. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) provides abundant information on blood pressure (BP), including heart rate, all BP readings for test periods, BP average, BP variability, BP load, load index, distribution pattern of BP, reduction percentage of BP, trough/peak ratio, and summary statistics for overall 24-hour, daytime and nighttime periods. Over the last three decades, ABPM has evolved from a research device to an established and valuable clinical tool for assessment and management of hypertension. This technology has been proven to be useful in terms of the distribution pattern of BP, characterization of BP profiles in normotensive and hypertensive patients, evaluation of patients with mild or labile hypertension, physiologic and psychologic factors for fluctuation of BP, load index study, study of white coat hypertension, etiology of hypertension, prognosis of hypertension, and assessment of antihypertensive management. Nevertheless, the technology remains underused due to lack of insurance reimbursement in most countries. Accordingly, insurance reimbursement is crucial to promote increased utility of ABPM. Clinicians should be familiar with the role of this technology in the care of patients with abnormal BP. This review is an attempt to increase clinicians' understanding of ABPM and the appropriate use of this technology.

Accurate diagnosis of hypertension and prognosis for future cardiovascular events can be enhanced through the use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. It has been suggested that the use of ambulatory monitoring as a secondary screening for hypertension might be cost-effective. Many needed studies that are related to the calculation of cost-effectiveness for ambulatory monitoring have become available in recent years. More accurate estimates for cost of care, costs for testing, prevalence of white-coat hypertension, and incidence of the transition from normal pressures to hypertension have been reported. This study presents calculations of the cost savings likely to take place when ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is implemented for newly detected hypertensive subjects. These calculations are based on current estimates for cost of testing, cost of treatment, prevalence of white-coat hypertension at baseline, and varying the incidence of new hypertension after the initial screening. The results indicate a potential savings of 3% to 14% for cost of care for hypertension and 10% to 23% reduction in treatment days when ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is incorporated into the diagnostic process. At current reimbursement rates, the cost of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for secondary screening on an annual basis would be <10% of treatment costs. Calculated savings for use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring can take place when annual treatment costs are as little as 300 dollars. These estimates should be considered for the management of recently detected hypertension, especially when the risk of future cardiovascular is disease is low.

Objectives: To assess whether blood pressure control in primary care could be improved with the use of patient held targets and self monitoring in a practice setting, and to assess the impact of these on health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences, and costs., Design: Randomised controlled trial., Setting: Eight general practices in south Birmingham., Participants: 441 people receiving treatment in primary care for hypertension but not controlled below the target of < 140/85 mm Hg., Interventions: Patients in the intervention group received treatment targets along with facilities to measure their own blood pressure at their general practice; they were also asked to visit their general practitioner or practice nurse if their blood pressure was repeatedly above the target level. Patients in the control group received usual care (blood pressure monitoring by their practice)., Primary Outcome: change in systolic blood pressure at six months and one year in both intervention and control groups., Secondary Outcomes: change in health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences of method of blood pressure monitoring, and costs., Results: 400 (91%) patients attended follow up at one year. Systolic blood pressure in the intervention group had significantly reduced after six months (mean difference 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 0.8 mm Hg to 7.9 mm Hg)) but not after one year (mean difference 2.7 mm Hg (- 1.2 mm Hg to 6.6 mm Hg)). No overall difference was found in diastolic blood pressure, anxiety, health behaviours, or number of prescribed drugs. Patients who self monitored lost more weight than controls (as evidenced by a drop in body mass index), rated self monitoring above monitoring by a doctor or nurse, and consulted less often. Overall, self monitoring did not cost significantly more than usual care (251 pounds sterling (437 dollars; 364 euros) (95% confidence interval 233 pounds sterling to 275 pounds sterling) versus 240 pounds sterling (217 pounds sterling to 263 pounds sterling)., Conclusions: Practice based self monitoring resulted in small but significant improvements of blood pressure at six months, which were not sustained after a year. Self monitoring was well received by patients, anxiety did not increase, and there was no appreciable additional cost. Practice based self monitoring is feasible and results in blood pressure control that is similar to that in usual care.

Achieving target levels of office and/or ambulatory blood pressure readings among treated hypertensive patients is an important aspect of cardiovascular disease prevention. Although office blood pressure measurement is simple and convenient, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is especially useful for identifying patients with 'white coat' hypertension, in whom falsely raised office blood pressure recordings often lead to unnecessary return visits and additional treatment. Office and ambulatory blood pressure control was compared in 374 treated hypertensive patients in a single general practice, and the costs of performing annual ambulatory blood pressure measurements were compared with potential clinical savings. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring detected 115 (31%) patients who fulfilled the British Hypertension Society target for ambulatory but not office blood pressure, i.e. white coat hypertension, and 21 patients apparently controlled by office but not ambulatory blood pressure criteria. In economic modelling, the capital, maintenance and user costs of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (13,790 Pounds per year) were partly offset by fewer follow-up visits and second-line treatments in the group with white coat hypertension (there were modelled savings of 10,178 Pounds). Thus, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring identified a much larger number of treated hypertensive patients with adequate blood pressure control at an extra net cost of 3612 Pounds per year.

Background: Ambulatory blood pressure measurements may be performed with manual or automatic devices. Such methods seem to be increasingly used for diagnosing conditions like "white coat hypertension" or abnormal variations in the 24-hour blood pressure profile. However, it is not yet known whether these patients are exposed to an increased risk of cardiovascular events., Materials and Methods: This paper is a summary of systematic reviews (health technology assessment reports) of the performance and effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure measurements for the diagnosis of hypertension., Results: Ambulatory blood pressure measurements may be used during medical treatment for hypertension to control blood pressure, and patients using these measurements have been shown to reach the target blood pressure at lower medication levels than patients depending on blood pressure measurements in the surgery., Interpretation: Widespread use of ambulatory blood pressure measurements in order to predict cardiovascular risk requires knowledge about diagnostic and prognostic performance. There are studies that address these concerns, but major weaknesses in study design limit their value. The lack of a consensus on reference values is also an impediment to the use of ambulatory blood pressure measurements.

Background: To contrast the costs of conventional and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) methods in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of mild hypertensive patients., Methods: Among patients with conventional diagnosis of mild hypertension, the ABPM would discriminate patients with sustained hypertension, who would receive drug treatment, from patients with white coat hypertension (WCH), who would be only followed up. The diagnosis, treatment and control costs were obtained from 446 mild hypertensive patients from the Primary Health Care Center Aranbizkarra II (Vitoria, Spain) during 1996. For each gender, the overall costs per patient were estimated in both conventional and ABPM methods in terms of mean diagnosis age and WCH percentage., Results: For 45 years old patients and 30% of WCH, the overall costs per patient among men were 414,999 and 371, 101 pesetas with conventional and ABPM methods, respectively. From 30 to 60 years old patients, the ABPM method turned up to be less expensive as long as the WCH percentage was higher than 6%. Similar results were obtained among women with mild hypertension., Conclusions: ABPM can be accepted as an useful clinical tool for the screening of patients with conventional diagnosis of mild hypertension. On the one hand, ABPM allows to select patients with low cardiovascular risk (WCH). On the other hand, the savings resulting from treatment reduction and fewer physician visits are higher than the additional costs of ABPM recordings.

Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring as an adjunct to casual/clinic BP measurements is currently used widely for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. It has been established that ambulatory BP monitoring is essential to confirm "white coat" hypertension, drug-resistant hypertension, duration of drug action, short-term BP variation, and nocturnal and on-the-job BP levels. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 ambulatory BP monitoring devices are currently used in Japan. That number would increase if 1) a standard algorithm with a theoretical basis to determine BP levels is introduced for ambulatory BP monitoring devices based on cuff-oscillometric method, 2) the reproducibility of ambulatory BP levels is confirmed, 3) reference values for evaluating ambulatory BP monitoring levels are established, and 4) the clinical significance and prognostic value of ambulatory BP monitoring is established. If such problems is settled, the use of ambulatory BP monitoring in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension would be national health insurance and would improve the prognostic accuracy of evaluating hypertension as well as the cost-effectiveness of screening, diagnosis and treatment of hypertension.