Cargando…
Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8134050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32461579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41371-020-0357-x |
_version_ | 1783695155717472256 |
---|---|
author | Constanti, Margaret Boffa, Rebecca Floyd, Christopher N. Wierzbicki, Anthony S. McManus, Richard J. Glover, Mark |
author_facet | Constanti, Margaret Boffa, Rebecca Floyd, Christopher N. Wierzbicki, Anthony S. McManus, Richard J. Glover, Mark |
author_sort | Constanti, Margaret |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8134050 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81340502021-06-01 Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model Constanti, Margaret Boffa, Rebecca Floyd, Christopher N. Wierzbicki, Anthony S. McManus, Richard J. Glover, Mark J Hum Hypertens Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-05-28 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8134050/ /pubmed/32461579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41371-020-0357-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Constanti, Margaret Boffa, Rebecca Floyd, Christopher N. Wierzbicki, Anthony S. McManus, Richard J. Glover, Mark Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model |
title | Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model |
title_full | Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model |
title_fullStr | Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model |
title_full_unstemmed | Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model |
title_short | Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model |
title_sort | options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8134050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32461579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41371-020-0357-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT constantimargaret optionsforthediagnosisofhighbloodpressureinprimarycareasystematicreviewandeconomicmodel AT boffarebecca optionsforthediagnosisofhighbloodpressureinprimarycareasystematicreviewandeconomicmodel AT floydchristophern optionsforthediagnosisofhighbloodpressureinprimarycareasystematicreviewandeconomicmodel AT wierzbickianthonys optionsforthediagnosisofhighbloodpressureinprimarycareasystematicreviewandeconomicmodel AT mcmanusrichardj optionsforthediagnosisofhighbloodpressureinprimarycareasystematicreviewandeconomicmodel AT glovermark optionsforthediagnosisofhighbloodpressureinprimarycareasystematicreviewandeconomicmodel |