Key result
ABPM remains rarely used, claimed for ~3 per 1000 commercially insured patients with incident hypertension.
Why the study?
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is increasingly recommended for diagnosis confirmation and monitoring in new-onset hypertension and apparent treatment-resistant hypertension, but its use in the U.S. commercially insured population is unclear.
What is the prevalence and trend of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) use among commercially insured U.S. patients with incident or resistant hypertension?
Cross-Sectional (n=3,118,352)
Yes
What is the prevalence and trend of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) use among commercially insured U.S. patients with incident or resistant hypertension?
Despite guideline recommendations for wider use, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is vastly underutilized in the U.S., with fewer than 0.5% of commercially insured patients with newly treated or resistant hypertension receiving it.
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has been increasingly recommended for diagnosis confirmation and monitoring in patients with new-onset hypertension and apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH). We assessed insurance claims submitted for ABPM among a nationally representative sample of commercially insured U.S. patients. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using the IBM MarketScan® commercial claims database from January 2008–December 2017, including 2 populations: those with incident treated hypertension (ITH; first antihypertensive filled) or aTRH (first overlapping use of 4 antihypertensive agents). We identified ABPM claims filed within 6 months before to 6 months after the qualifying antihypertensive fill and determined prevalence of ABPM use overall and by year in each population. In total, 2,820,303 patients met ITH criteria and 298,049 met aTRH criteria. Of those with ITH, 7650 (2.7 per 1000 persons) had ≥1 ABPM claim submitted, and annual ABPM prevalence ranged from 2.0 to 3.7 per 1000 persons, increasing over time (Ptrend<0.0001). Among those with aTRH, 630 (2.1 per 1000 persons) had ≥1 ABPM claim submitted, and annual ABPM prevalence ranged from 1.6 to 2.7 per 1000 persons, decreasing over time (Ptrend = 0.054). Timing of ABPM claims suggested they were used primarily for diagnosis confirmation in ITH, and more evenly distributed between diagnosis confirmation and monitoring in aTRH. Despite guideline recommendations for more widescale use, ABPM appears to be used rarely in the U.S., with fewer than 0.5% of commercially insured patients with newly treated hypertension or aTRH having ABPM claims submitted to their insurance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Desai et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension and apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (n=3,118,352). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was evaluated on Prevalence of ABPM use overall and by year. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was rarely used among commercially insured U.S. patients, with claims submitted for only 2.7 per 1000 persons with incident hypertension and 2.1 per 1000 with aTRH.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: