2.7 A HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION ON THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF HYPERTENSION MANAGEMENT GUIDED BY CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT: ANALYSIS OF THE BPGUIDE STUDY

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 164
Author(s):  
S.P. O’Malley ◽  
J.E. Sharman
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Hypertension Management ◽  
Measurement Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Incorporation and abandonment of technologies for indirect blood pressure measurement: analysis of preferences of patients with obesity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nila Larisse Silva de Albuquerque ◽  
Samantha Matos Borges ◽  
Liana Quéren Alves Lima Silva ◽  
Laís Vitória Araújo da Silva ◽  
Talita Maria de Oliveira Rabelo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Measurement Analysis ◽  
Indirect Blood Pressure

scholarly journals MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on office BP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study: a randomised controlled trial protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e021038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Parati ◽  
Enrico Agabiti-Rosei ◽  
George L Bakris ◽  
Grzegorz Bilo ◽  
Giovanna Branzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Ambulatory Blood Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Management Strategy ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Uncontrolled Hypertension ◽  
Hypertension Management ◽  
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

IntroductionMasked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) carries an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications and can be identified through combined use of office (O) and ambulatory (A) blood pressure (BP) monitoring (M) in treated patients. However, it is still debated whether the information carried by ABPM should be considered for MUCH management. Aim of the MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on OBP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study is to assess the impact on outcome of MUCH management based on OBPM or ABPM.Methods and analysisMASTER is a 4-year prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint investigation. A total of 1240 treated hypertensive patients from about 40 secondary care clinical centres worldwide will be included -upon confirming presence of MUCH (repeated on treatment OBP <140/90 mm Hg, and at least one of the following: daytime ABP ≥135/85 mm Hg; night-time ABP ≥120/70 mm Hg; 24 hour ABP ≥130/80 mm Hg), and will be randomised to a management strategy based on OBPM (group 1) or on ABPM (group 2). Patients in group 1 will have OBP measured at 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months and taken as a guide for treatment; ABPM will be performed at randomisation and at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months but will not be used to take treatment decisions. Patients randomised to group 2 will have ABPM performed at randomisation and all scheduled visits as a guide to antihypertensive treatment. The effects of MUCH management strategy based on ABPM or on OBPM on CV and renal intermediate outcomes (changing left ventricular mass and microalbuminuria, coprimary outcomes) at 1 year and on CV events at 4 years and on changes in BP-related variables will be assessed.Ethics and disseminationMASTER study protocol has received approval by the ethical review board of Istituto Auxologico Italiano. The procedures set out in this protocol are in accordance with principles of Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Results will be published in accordance with the CONSORT statement in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Trial registration numberNCT02804074; Pre-results.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile Health (mHealth) Interventions for Older Adults: Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (15) ◽  
pp. 5290
Author(s):  
Zartashia Ghani ◽  
Johan Jarl ◽  
Johan Sanmartin Berglund ◽  
Martin Andersson ◽  
Peter Anderberg
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
The Cost

The objective of this study was to critically assess and review empirical evidence on the cost-effectiveness of Mobile Health (mHealth) interventions for older adults. We systematically searched databases such as Pubmed, Scopus, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Literature (CINAHL) for peer-reviewed economic evaluations published in English from 2007 to 2018. We extracted data on methods and empirical evidence (costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) and assessed if this evidence supported the reported findings in terms of cost-effectiveness. The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of the included studies. Eleven studies were identified and categorized into two groups: complex smartphone communication and simple text-based communication. Substantial heterogeneity among the studies in terms of methodological approaches and types of intervention was observed. The cost-effectiveness of complex smartphone communication interventions cannot be judged due to lack of information. Limited evidence of cost-effectiveness was found for interventions related to simple text-based communications. Comprehensive economic evaluation studies are warranted to assess the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions designed for older adults.

Cost-effectiveness of the introduction of home blood pressure measurement in patients with office hypertension

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 685-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hidefumi Fukunaga ◽  
Takayoshi Ohkubo ◽  
Makoto Kobayashi ◽  
Yuichiro Tamaki ◽  
Masahiro Kikuya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Home Blood Pressure

Quality of economic evaluations of ventricular assist devices: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-387
Author(s):  
Sarah Fontenay ◽  
Lionel Catarino ◽  
Soumeya Snoussi ◽  
Hélène van den Brink ◽  
Judith Pineau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Ventricular Assist

ObjectiveBecause of a lack of suitable heart donors, alternatives to transplantation are required. These alternatives can have high costs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings.MethodsA systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies dealing with VADs. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists.ResultsOf the 1,258 publications identified, thirteen articles were included in this review. Twelve studies were cost–utility analyses and one was a cost-effectiveness analysis. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the quality of the data used was heterogeneous. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, and baseline clinical data was of poor quality. In contrast, cost data were of high quality in most studies. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 17.4 (range 15–19) according to the CHEERS checklist.ConclusionThe current study shows that the quality of clinical data used in economic evaluations of VADs is rather poor in general. This is a concern that deserves greater attention in the process of health technology assessment of medical devices.

scholarly journals A guided and unguided internet- and mobile-based intervention for chronic pain: health economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e023390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Paganini ◽  
Jiaxi Lin ◽  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Delia Leiding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Treatment Response ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveThis study aims at evaluating the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a guided and unguided internet-based intervention for chronic pain patients (ACTonPainguidedand ACTonPainunguided) compared with a waitlist control group (CG) as well as the comparative cost-effectiveness of the guided and the unguided version.DesignThis is a health economic evaluation alongside a three-arm randomised controlled trial from a societal perspective. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 9 weeks and 6 months after randomisation.SettingParticipants were recruited through online and offline strategies and in collaboration with a health insurance company.Participants302 adults (≥18 years, pain for at least 6 months) were randomly allocated to one of the three groups (ACTonPainguided, ACTonPainunguided, CG).InterventionsACTonPain consists of seven modules and is based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. ACTonPainguidedand ACTonPainunguidedonly differ in provision of human support.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMain outcomes of the cost-effectiveness and the cost-utility analyses were meaningful change in pain interference (treatment response) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. Economic evaluation estimates were the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio (ICER/ICUR).ResultsAt 6-month follow-up, treatment response and QALYs were highest in ACTonPainguided(44% and 0.280; mean costs = €6,945), followed by ACTonPainunguided(28% and 0.266; mean costs = €6,560) and the CG (16% and 0.244; mean costs = €6,908). ACTonPainguidedvs CG revealed an ICER of €45 and an ICUR of €604.ACTonPainunguideddominated CG. At a willingness-to-pay of €0 the probability of being cost-effective was 50% for ACTonPainguided(vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained) and 67% for ACTonPainunguided(vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained). These probabilities rose to 95% when society’s willingness-to-pay is €91,000 (ACTonPainguided) and €127,000 (ACTonPainunguided) per QALY gained. ACTonPainguidedvs ACTonPainunguidedrevealed an ICER of €2,374 and an ICUR of €45,993.ConclusionsDepending on society’s willingness-to-pay, ACTonPain is a potentially cost-effective adjunct to established pain treatment. ACTonPainunguided(vs CG) revealed lower costs at better health outcomes. However, uncertainty has to be considered. Direct comparison of the two interventions does not indicate a preference for ACTonPainguided.Trial registration numberDRKS00006183.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document