Key result
ABPM screening for masked hypertension is cost-effective vs usual care at ~$85,000 per QALY.
Why the study?
Guidelines recommend ABPM or HBPM to screen for masked hypertension, but limited evidence exists regarding the expected long-term effects of screening and treatment.
Does screening with ABPM or HBPM improve cost-effectiveness and health outcomes in US adults with suspected masked hypertension?
Does screening with ABPM or HBPM improve cost-effectiveness and health outcomes in US adults with suspected masked hypertension?
Simulation modeling suggests that screening for masked hypertension with ABPM is cost-effective in US adults with suspected masked hypertension, whereas screening with HBPM may reduce quality-adjusted life years.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ABPM screening may warrant consideration for masked hypertension; leaves open real-world effectiveness and HBPM role.
BACKGROUND: Recent US blood pressure (BP) guidelines recommend using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM) to screen adults for masked hypertension. However, limited evidence exists of the expected long-term effects of screening for and treating masked hypertension. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime health and economic outcomes of screening for and treating masked hypertension using the Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model, a validated microsimulation model. We simulated a cohort of 100,000 US adults aged ≥20 years with suspected masked hypertension (i.e., office BP 120-129/<80 mm Hg, not taking antihypertensive medications, without CVD history). We compared usual care only (i.e., no screening), usual care plus ABPM, and usual care plus HBPM. We projected total direct healthcare costs (2021 USD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. Secondary outcomes included CVD events and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, adding masked hypertension screening and treatment with ABPM and HBPM was projected to prevent 14.3 and 20.5 CVD events per 100,000 person-years, increase the proportion experiencing any treatment-related serious adverse events by 2.7 and 5.1 percentage points, and increase mean total costs by $1,076 and $1,046, respectively. Compared with usual care, adding ABPM was estimated to cost $85,164/QALY gained. HBPM resulted in lower QALYs than usual care due to increased treatment-related adverse events and pill-taking disutility. CONCLUSIONS: The results from our simulation study suggest screening with ABPM and treating masked hypertension is cost-effective in US adults with suspected masked hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Green et al. (2022) studied Suspected masked hypertension (n=100,000). Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM) vs. Usual care only (no screening) was evaluated on Total direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Screening with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and treating masked hypertension was estimated to be cost-effective in US adults, costing $85,164 per QALY gained compared with usual care.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: