Literature DB >> 32461579

Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model.

Margaret Constanti1, Rebecca Boffa2, Christopher N Floyd3, Anthony S Wierzbicki4, Richard J McManus5, Mark Glover6.   

Abstract

The 2011 NICE hypertension guideline (CG127) undertook a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of different blood pressure (BP) assessment methods to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension. The guideline also undertook a cost-utility analysis exploring the cost-effectiveness of the monitoring methods. A new systematic review was undertaken as part of the 2019 NICE hypertension guideline update (NG136). BP monitoring methods compared included Ambulatory BP, Clinic BP and Home BP. Ambulatory BP was the reference standard. The economic model from the 2011 guideline was updated with this new accuracy data. Home BP was more sensitive and specific than Clinic BP. Specificity improved more than sensitivity since the 2011 review. A higher specificity translates into fewer people requiring unnecessary treatment. A key interest was to compare Home BP and Ambulatory BP, and whether any improvement in Home BP accuracy would change the model results. Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in all age and sex subgroups. In all subgroups, Ambulatory BP was associated with lower costs than Clinic BP and Home BP. In all except one subgroup (females aged 40), Ambulatory BP was dominant. However, Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in 40-year-old females as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Home BP versus Ambulatory BP was above the NICE £20,000 threshold. The new systematic review showed that the accuracy of both Clinic BP and Home BP has increased. However, Ambulatory BP remains the most cost-effective option to confirm a diagnosis of hypertension in all subgroups evaluated.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32461579     DOI: 10.1038/s41371-020-0357-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Hypertens        ISSN: 0950-9240            Impact factor:   3.012


  4 in total

1.  Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Diagnosis of Hypertension During Higher-Risk Pregnancy: The BUMP 1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Katherine L Tucker; Sam Mort; Ly-Mee Yu; Helen Campbell; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Hannah M Wilson; Julie Allen; Rebecca Band; Alison Chisholm; Carole Crawford; Greig Dougall; Lazarina Engonidou; Marloes Franssen; Marcus Green; Sheila Greenfield; Lisa Hinton; James Hodgkinson; Layla Lavallee; Paul Leeson; Christine McCourt; Lucy Mackillop; Jane Sandall; Mauro Santos; Lionel Tarassenko; Carmelo Velardo; Lucy Yardley; Lucy C Chappell; Richard J McManus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 157.335

2.  Impact of changes to national guidelines on hypertension-related workload: an interrupted time series analysis in English primary care.

Authors:  Sarah L Lay-Flurrie; James P Sheppard; Richard J Stevens; Christian Mallen; Carl Heneghan; Fd Richard Hobbs; Bryan Williams; Jonathan Mant; Richard J McManus
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Experiences of treatment-resistant mental health conditions in primary care: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Authors:  Amelia Talbot; Charlotte Lee; Sara Ryan; Nia Roberts; Kamal R Mahtani; Charlotte Albury
Journal:  BMC Prim Care       Date:  2022-08-16

4.  Comparability of a Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Application with Conventional Measurements-A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Annina S Vischer; Jana Rosania; Thenral Socrates; Christina Blaschke; Jens Eckstein; Yara-Maria Proust; Guillaume Bonnier; Martin Proença; Mathieu Lemay; Thilo Burkard
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-19
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.