Economics of Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Community Guide Systematic Review
- PMID: 28818277
- PMCID: PMC5657494
- DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.03.002
Economics of Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Community Guide Systematic Review
Abstract
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.
Figures
References
-
- Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 Update. A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133(4):447–454. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000366. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Goff DC, Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 Pt B):2935–2959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.005. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Ovbiagele B, Goldstein LB, Higashida RT, et al. Forecasting the future of stroke in the United States. A policy statement from the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44(8):2361–2375. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0b013e31829734f2. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Lackland DT, Roccella EJ, Deutsch AF, et al. Factors influencing the decline in stroke mortality: a statement from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45(1):315–353. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000437068.30550.cf. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Uhlig K, Balk EM, Patel K, et al. Comparative Effectiveness Reviews No. 45. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; [Accessed August 30, 2016]. 2012. Self-measured blood pressure monitoring: comparative effectiveness [Internet] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22439158. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
