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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Constanti, Margaret, Boffa, Rebecca, Floyd, Christopher N., Wierzbicki, Anthony S., McManus, Richard J., Glover, Mark
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