Search

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.

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.

Context: The health and economic burden of hypertension, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is substantial. This systematic review evaluated the economic evidence of self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring interventions to control hypertension., Evidence Acquisition: The literature search from database inception to March 2015 identified 22 studies for inclusion with three types of interventions: SMBP used alone, SMBP with additional support, and SMBP within team-based care (TBC). Two formulae were used to convert reductions in systolic BP (SBP) to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to produce cost per QALY saved. All analyses were conducted in 2015, with estimates adjusted to 2014 U.S. dollars., Evidence Synthesis: Median costs of intervention were $60 and $174 per person for SMBP alone and SMBP with additional support, respectively, and $732 per person per year for SMBP within TBC. SMBP alone and SMBP with additional support reduced healthcare cost per person per year from outpatient visits and medication (medians $148 and $3, respectively; median follow-up, 12-13 months). SMBP within TBC exhibited an increase in healthcare cost (median, $369 per person per year; median follow-up, 18 months). SMBP alone varied from cost saving to a maximum cost of $144,000 per QALY saved, with two studies reporting an increase in SBP. The two translated median costs per QALY saved were $2,800 and $4,000 for SMBP with additional support and $7,500 and $10,800 for SMBP within TBC., Conclusions: SMBP monitoring interventions with additional support or within TBC are cost effective. Cost effectiveness of SMBP used alone could not be determined., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: The purpose of the present study was to compare the costs of home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring (HBPM) with the costs of conventional office BP monitoring. In a randomized controlled trial, 105 hypertensive patients performed HBPM and 118 patients received usual care with conventional office BP monitoring during 6 months. Costs were quantified from the healthcare perspective. Non-parametric simulations were performed to quantify the uncertainty around the mean estimates and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were made., Major Findings: Systolic and diastolic daytime and night-time ambulatory BP (ABP) were reduced in both groups. The uncertainty around the incremental cost effectiveness ratio point estimates was considerable for both systolic and diastolic ABP. For systolic ABP, the difference in cost effectiveness ratio between the two groups was 256 Danish kroner (DKK)/mmHg [95% uncertainty interval, UI -860 to 4544]. For diastolic ABP, the difference in cost effectiveness ratio between the two groups was 655 DKK/mmHg [95% UI -674 to 69315]. Medication and consultation costs were lowest in the intervention group, but were offset by the cost of the telemonitoring equipment., Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that telemonitoring of home BP was more costly compared with usual monitoring of office BP. The cost-effectiveness result is surrounded with considerable uncertainty.

Objective: The goal was to determine the cost-effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the initial evaluation of stage 1 hypertension., Methods: Retrospective chart review of data for children referred to Texas Children's Hospital hypertension clinic between January 2005 and August 2006 was performed. We compared the costs of standard evaluations versus the initial use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for children with clinic blood pressure measurements suggesting stage 1 hypertension. Charges for clinic visits, laboratory tests, and imaging were obtained from the Texas Children's Hospital billing department., Results: A total of 267 children were referred. One hundred thirty-nine children did not receive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; 54 met clinical indications for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring but did not receive it because it was not a covered expense (44 children) or the family refused the study (10 children). One hundred twenty-six children received clinically indicated ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, paid for either through insurance or by the family. Fifty-eight children (46%) had confirmed white-coat hypertension, 62 (49%) stage 1 hypertension, and 6 (5%) stage 2 hypertension. With the observed prevalence of white-coat hypertension, initial ambulatory blood pressure monitoring use yielded net savings after evaluation of 3 patients, with projected savings of $2.4 million per 1000 patients., Conclusions: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the initial evaluation of suspected childhood hypertension is highly cost-effective. Awareness of cost saving potential may increase the availability of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for evaluation of new-onset hypertension.

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.

Objective: To compare the cost of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) with the putative savings made through treatment avoided by identification and non-treatment of those with "white coat" hypertension., Design: A cost analysis based on a model of four alternative strategies (no ABPM, yearly, two-yearly, or three-yearly monitoring) over a seven-year period applied to a case series from Australian general practice., Participants: 62 patients newly diagnosed by their GPs as having hypertension and requiring drug treatment., Main Outcome Measures: The proportion of patients shown to not need treatment. The discounted costs to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medical Benefits Scheme and patients., Results: 16 of 62 patients (26%; 95% CI, 15%-37%) were normotensive on ABPM and did not require treatment. All monitoring strategies are more expensive in the first year, but the initial costs are offset by year 3 and the monitoring strategies are cost saving thereafter. Sensitivity analysis shows that this result holds across a range of costs of pharmacotherapy and proportion of patients with white coat hypertension., Conclusion: The additional costs of 24-hour ABPM in the first year are offset by savings associated with patients with white coat hypertension who would otherwise have been treated.

To evaluate the prevalence of 'white-coat' hypertension in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, 255 subjects (131 males and 124 females) underwent 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Patients with 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure < 135/85 mmHg were classified as white-coat hypertensives and the remaining as sustained hypertensives. On the assumption that white-coat hypertensives may not need to take antihypertensive medication, we evaluated the impact on cost of health care of two strategies based essentially on treating all patients according to casual blood pressure, or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, followed by drug treatment in sustained hypertensives only. Of the 255 hypertensives studied, 54 (21%), confidence interval 16%, 26%, were classified as white-coat hypertensives. The age, sex-ratio and body mass index did not differ between the white-coat and the sustained hypertensive subjects. The strategy of monitoring all patients and of treating only the sustained hypertensives resulted in a substantial coat saving, which was calculated to be about 110,000 U.S.A. dollars over a period of 6 years. In conclusion, white-coat hypertensives are frequent among patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, and they do not differ from sustained hypertensives as regards demographic data. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, when used to decide whether or not to treat pharmacologically, increases the cost-effectiveness of treatment for hypertension and reduces the cost of health care.