National Clinical Guideline Centre, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Lancet. 2011 Oct 1;378(9798):1219-30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61184-7. Epub 2011 Aug 23.
The diagnosis of hypertension has traditionally been based on blood-pressure measurements in the clinic, but home and ambulatory measurements better correlate with cardiovascular outcome, and ambulatory monitoring is more accurate than both clinic and home monitoring in diagnosing hypertension. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic strategies for hypertension.
We did a Markov model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis. We used a hypothetical primary-care population aged 40 years or older with a screening blood-pressure measurement greater than 140/90 mm Hg and risk-factor prevalence equivalent to the general population. We compared three diagnostic strategies-further blood pressure measurement in the clinic, at home, and with an ambulatory monitor-in terms of lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years, and cost-effectiveness.
Ambulatory monitoring was the most cost-effective strategy for the diagnosis of hypertension for men and women of all ages. It was cost-saving for all groups (from -£56 [95% CI -105 to -10] in men aged 75 years to -£323 [-389 to -222] in women aged 40 years) and resulted in more quality-adjusted life years for men and women older than 50 years (from 0·006 [0·000 to 0·015] for women aged 60 years to 0·022 [0·012 to 0·035] for men aged 70 years). This finding was robust when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case, but was sensitive if home monitoring was judged to have equal test performance to ambulatory monitoring or if treatment was judged effective irrespective of whether an individual was hypertensive.
Ambulatory monitoring as a diagnostic strategy for hypertension after an initial raised reading in the clinic would reduce misdiagnosis and save costs. Additional costs from ambulatory monitoring are counterbalanced by cost savings from better targeted treatment. Ambulatory monitoring is recommended for most patients before the start of antihypertensive drugs.
National Institute for Health Research and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
高血压的诊断传统上基于诊所的血压测量,但家庭和动态测量与心血管结果相关性更好,动态监测在诊断高血压方面比诊所和家庭监测都更准确。我们旨在比较不同高血压诊断策略的成本效益。
我们进行了基于马尔可夫模型的概率成本效益分析。我们使用了一个假设的初级保健人群,年龄在 40 岁或以上,有筛查血压测量值大于 140/90mmHg 及相当于一般人群的危险因素患病率。我们比较了三种诊断策略,即进一步在诊所、家庭和动态监测仪中测量血压,从终生成本、质量调整生命年和成本效益方面进行比较。
对于所有年龄段的男性和女性,动态监测是诊断高血压最具成本效益的策略。对于所有年龄段的男性和女性,它都具有成本效益(从 75 岁男性的 -£56[95%CI-105 到-10]到 40 岁女性的 -£323[-389 到-222]),并且对于年龄大于 50 岁的男性和女性增加了质量调整生命年(从 60 岁女性的 0·006[0·000 到 0·015]到 70 岁男性的 0·022[0·012 到 0·035])。在对基础案例进行广泛的确定性敏感性分析评估时,这一发现是稳健的,但如果家庭监测被认为与动态监测具有同等的检测性能,或者如果治疗被认为有效而不论个体是否患有高血压,则该发现是敏感的。
在诊所初始升高读数后,将动态监测作为高血压的诊断策略,可减少误诊并节省成本。动态监测的额外成本被更有针对性的治疗带来的成本节约所抵消。建议大多数患者在开始使用抗高血压药物之前进行动态监测。
英国国家健康研究所和英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所。