Key result
Self-monitoring of blood pressure with automated telemonitoring did not significantly change total healthcare costs compared to usual care in pregnant individuals at risk of hypertension (MD £151; 95% CI -£633 to £936).
Why the study?
Pregnancy hypertension causes maternal and perinatal morbidity, and the economic impact of adding self-monitoring of blood pressure with automated telemonitoring to usual care required evaluation.
Does self-monitoring of blood pressure with automated telemonitoring change healthcare costs in pregnant individuals at risk of or with hypertension?
RCT (n=3,291)
Does self-monitoring of blood pressure with automated telemonitoring change healthcare costs in pregnant individuals at risk of or with hypertension?
Mean Difference: 151 (95% CI -633–936)
Absolute Event Rate: 7200% vs 7063%
Adding self-monitoring of blood pressure with telemonitoring to usual care does not significantly alter healthcare costs in pregnant individuals at risk of or with hypertension.
SMBP with telemonitoring adds costs without clinical benefit in pregnancy hypertension; challenges routine adoption and reinforces standard antenatal care.
BACKGROUND: Pregnancy hypertension continues to cause maternal and perinatal morbidity. Two linked UK randomized trials showed adding self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) with automated telemonitoring to usual antenatal care did not result in earlier detection or better control of pregnancy hypertension. This article reports the trials' integrated cost analyses. METHODS: Two cost analyses. SMBP with usual care was compared with usual care alone in pregnant individuals at risk of hypertension (BUMP 1 trial [Blood Pressure Monitoring in High Risk Pregnancy to Improve the Detection and Monitoring of Hypertension], n=2441) and with hypertension (BUMP 2 trial, n=850). Clinical notes review identified participant-level antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care and these were costed. Comparisons between trial arms used means and 95% CIs. Within BUMP 2, chronic and gestational hypertension cohorts were analyzed separately. Telemonitoring system costs were reported separately. RESULTS: In BUMP 1, mean (SE) total costs with SMBP and with usual care were £7200 (£323) and £7063 (£245), respectively, mean difference (95% CI), £151 (-£633 to £936). For the BUMP 2 chronic hypertension cohort, corresponding figures were £13 384 (£1230), £12 614 (£1081), mean difference £323 (-£2904 to £3549) and for the gestational hypertension cohort were £11 456 (£901), £11 145 (£959), mean difference £41 (-£2486 to £2567). The per-person cost of telemonitoring was £6 in BUMP 1 and £29 in BUMP 2. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP was not associated with changes in the cost of health care contacts for individuals at risk of, or with, pregnancy hypertension. This is reassuring as SMBP in pregnancy is widely prevalent, particularly because of the COVID-19 pandemic. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03334149.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Campbell et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Pregnancy hypertension (n=3,291). Self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) with automated telemonitoring vs. Usual care alone was evaluated on Total costs of health care contacts (BUMP 1) (MD 151, 95% CI -633 to 936). Self-monitoring of blood pressure with automated telemonitoring did not significantly change total healthcare costs compared to usual care in pregnant individuals at risk of hypertension (MD £151; 95% CI -£633 to £936).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: