User login
Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.
In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.
“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.
HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”
Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.
Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.
In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”
The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.
“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.
This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.
Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.
In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.
“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.
HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”
Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.
Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.
In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”
The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.
“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.
This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.
Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.
In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.
“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.
HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”
Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.
Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.
In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”
The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.
“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.
This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN