Search

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 examine the degree of knowledge and management of automated devices for office blood pressure measurement (AD), home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in primary care in Spain., Methods: Online self-administered survey sent between May 2016 and February 2017 to 2221 primary-care physicians working across Spain. Clinicians were mostly identified through national primary-care scientific societies (20% overall response rate)., Results: Participants' mean age was 47.7 years, 55% were women, and 54% reported at least 20 years of primary-care practice. Among them, 47.5% considered ABPM the best diagnostic method for hypertension, 23% chose HBPM, and 7.1% chose office blood pressure. Also, 78.2% had AD available at their centers and 49.0% had ABPM, with slight urban/rural differences. HBPM was recommended in daily practice for hypertension diagnosis by 67% of participants, whereas 30% recommended ABPM. Cost to the patients was the main reason for not using HBPM (42.7%) as was lack of accessibility for not using ABPM (69.8%). Lack of specific training was also reported as an important reason in both cases., Conclusion: Even in the possibly best primary care scenario presented by highly motivated physicians (respondents to a voluntary anonymous survey), enormous gaps were observed between current guidelines' recommendations on ABPM and HBPM use for confirming hypertension and the modest degree of knowledge, availability, and use of these technologies.

In 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated their hypertension recommendations to advise that adults with elevated office blood pressure (BP) undergo out-of-office BP measurement to exclude white coat hypertension before diagnosis. Our goal was to determine the most important barriers to primary care providers' ordering ambulatory and home BP monitoring in the United States. We enrolled 63 primary care providers into nominal group panels in which participants iteratively listed and ranked barriers to ambulatory and home BP monitoring. Top-ranked barriers to ambulatory BP monitoring were challenges in accessing testing, costs of testing, concerns about the willingness or ability of patients to successfully complete tests, and concerns about the accuracy and benefits of testing. Top-ranked barriers to home BP monitoring were concerns about compliance with the correct test protocol, accuracy of tests results, out-of-pocket costs of home BP devices, and time needed to instruct patients on home BP monitoring protocol. Efforts to increase the use of ambulatory and home BP monitoring by primary care providers in the United States should prioritize increasing the financial and personnel resources available for testing and addressing provider concerns about patients' ability to conduct high-quality tests., (Copyright © 2017 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

ABPM is an invaluable clinical tool, as it has been shown to improve blood pressure control in primary care. Many clinical guidelines for hypertension advocate ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. This study aims to quantify the use of clinical guidelines for hypertension and to explore the role of ABPM in Primary Care. A questionnaire survey was sent to GPs working in the West of Ireland. 88% (n=139) of GPs use clinical guidelines that recommend the use of ABPM. 82% (n=130) of GPs find use of clinic blood pressure monitoring insufficient for the diagnosis and monitoring of hypertension. Despite good access to ABPM, GPs report lack of remuneration, 72% (n=116), cost 68% (n=108), and lack of time, 51% (n=83) as the main limiting factors to use of ABPM. GPs recognise the clinical value of ABPM, but this study identifies definite barriers to the use of ABPM in Primary Care.