Cost Effectiveness of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Compared with Home or Clinic Blood Pressure Monitoring for Diagnosing Hypertension in Australia

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) compared with home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and clinic blood pressure monitoring (CBPM) in diagnosing hypertension in Australia. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was built from the Payer's perspective (Australian government) comparing lifetime costs and effectiveness of ABPM, HBPM and CBPM in people aged ≥ 35 years with suspected hypertension who have a CBPM between ≥ 140/90 mmHg and ≤ 180/110 mmHg using a sphygmomanometer and have not yet commenced antihypertensive treatment. The main outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) assessing cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-years (LYs) gained by ABPM versus HBPM and CBPM. Cost was measured in Australian dollars (A$). RESULTS: Over a lifetime model, ABPM had lower total costs (A$8,491) compared with HBPM (A$9,648) and CBPM (A$10,206) per person. ABPM was associated with a small but significant improvement in the quality and quantity of life for people with suspected hypertension with 12.872 QALYs and 17.449 LYs compared with 12.857 QALYs and 17.433 LYs with HBPM, and 12.850 QALYs and 17.425 LYs with CBPM. In the base-case analysis, ABPM dominated HBPM and CBPM. In scenario analyses, at 100% specificity of HBPM, ABPM no longer remained cost effective at a A$50,000/QALY threshold. However, in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, over 10,000 iterations, ABPM remained dominant. CONCLUSION: ABPM was the dominant strategy for confirming the diagnosis of hypertension among Australian adults aged ≥ 35 years old with suspected hypertension. The findings of this study are important for reimbursement decision makers to support policy change and for clinicians to make practice changes consistent with ABPM recommendations in primary care.