Blood pressure monitoring · 2023
Cost-utility analysis of diagnostic methods for arterial hypertension in primary care for Brazil: ABPM vs. OBPM vs. HBPM.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Garcia Rosana Lima, Silva Marcus Tolentino, Amaral Amaury Zatorre, Silva Giovanio Vieira
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Arterial hypertension (AH) is diagnosed using three methods: office blood pressure measurement (OBPM), home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM), and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). No economic studies have evaluated the impact of incorporating these strategies for AH diagnosis into the Brazilian public health system.
METHODS: A Markov model was created to evaluate the costs associated with AH diagnosis using the ABPM, HBPM, and OBPM. Patients were entered into the model with SBP ≥ 130 mmHg or DBP ≥ 85 mmHg obtained using OBPM. The model was based on cost, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY. In the economic analysis, the costs were calculated from the perspective of the payer of the Brazilian public health system.
RESULTS: In the cost-utility analysis of the three methods, ABPM was the most cost-effective strategy compared to HBPM and OBPM in all groups over 35 years of age. Compared with OBPM, ABPM was a cost-effective strategy, as it presented higher costs in all scenarios, but with better QALYs. Compared to HBPM, ABPM was the dominant strategy for all age groups, presenting lower costs and higher QALYs. When comparing HBPM with OBPM, the results were similar to those described for ABPM (i.e. it was a cost-effective strategy).
CONCLUSION: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$35 000 per QALY gained, both ABPM and HBPM are cost-effective methods compared with OBPM in all scenarios. In Brazilian healthcare facilities that currently diagnose AH using OBPM, both ABPM and HBPM may be more cost-effective choices.
METHODS: A Markov model was created to evaluate the costs associated with AH diagnosis using the ABPM, HBPM, and OBPM. Patients were entered into the model with SBP ≥ 130 mmHg or DBP ≥ 85 mmHg obtained using OBPM. The model was based on cost, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY. In the economic analysis, the costs were calculated from the perspective of the payer of the Brazilian public health system.
RESULTS: In the cost-utility analysis of the three methods, ABPM was the most cost-effective strategy compared to HBPM and OBPM in all groups over 35 years of age. Compared with OBPM, ABPM was a cost-effective strategy, as it presented higher costs in all scenarios, but with better QALYs. Compared to HBPM, ABPM was the dominant strategy for all age groups, presenting lower costs and higher QALYs. When comparing HBPM with OBPM, the results were similar to those described for ABPM (i.e. it was a cost-effective strategy).
CONCLUSION: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$35 000 per QALY gained, both ABPM and HBPM are cost-effective methods compared with OBPM in all scenarios. In Brazilian healthcare facilities that currently diagnose AH using OBPM, both ABPM and HBPM may be more cost-effective choices.