Cost-utility analysis of diagnostic methods for arterial hypertension in primary care for Brazil: ABPM vs. OBPM vs. HBPM.

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.