Key result
Home blood pressure telemonitoring was more costly than usual office monitoring, with a difference in cost effectiveness ratio for systolic ABP of 256 DKK/mmHg (95% UI -860 to 4544).
Why the study?
Does home blood pressure telemonitoring improve cost-effectiveness compared to conventional office BP monitoring in hypertensive patients?
Population
223 hypertensive patients (n=105 in intervention, n=118 in control)
Comparison
Home blood pressure telemonitoring for 6 months vs Usual care with conventional office BP…
Design
RCT, randomized
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
Home BP telemonitoring raises costs with uncertain cost-effectiveness; challenges routine adoption and leaves value open for further trials.
RCT (n=223)
randomized
Does home blood pressure telemonitoring improve cost-effectiveness compared to conventional office BP monitoring in hypertensive patients?
Effect estimate: Difference 256 DKK/mmHg (95% CI -860 to 4544)
Home blood pressure telemonitoring is more costly than conventional office monitoring, with considerable uncertainty regarding its overall cost-effectiveness.
Madsen et al. (2010) conducted an RCT in hypertension (n=223). home blood pressure telemonitoring vs. usual care with conventional office BP monitoring was evaluated on incremental cost effectiveness ratio for systolic ambulatory BP (Difference 256 DKK/mmHg, 95% CI -860 to 4544). Home blood pressure telemonitoring was more costly than usual office monitoring, with a difference in cost effectiveness ratio for systolic ABP of 256 DKK/mmHg (95% UI -860 to 4544).