Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Constanti M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8134050 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Nocturnal hypertension (NH) is an independent cardiovascular risk factor. We aimed to describe the frequency of NH among primary care hypertensive patients and to analyze NH determinants. This observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study enrolled the patients of 23 general practitioners in Burgundy region, France. We included the first patient of the day with office blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mm Hg, whatever the reason for consultation. All included patients had 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Nocturnal hypertension was considered nighttime mean blood pressure ≥ 120/70 mm Hg, as per current guidelines. Medical, sociodemographic, and deprivation data were collected. Nocturnal hypertensive and non-hypertensive patients were compared. The determinants of NH were identified using logistic regression models. From July 2015 to November 2018, 447 patients were analyzed. Mean office blood pressure was 158.6/91.5 mm Hg, and 255 patients (57.0%) were taking at least one antihypertensive drug. Among the 409 (91.5%) valid ABPM, 316 (77.3%) showed NH. In multivariate analyses, male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-3.75), first office diastolic blood pressure >100 mm Hg (OR = 5.71, 95% CI 1.53-21.40), and current smoking (OR = 5.91, 95% CI 2.11-16.56) were independent predictors of NH. Obesity was associated with a reduced risk of NH (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.75). No association was found between deprivation status or sociodemographic factors and NH. To conclude, NH was identified in more than three out of four patients with high office blood pressure. Male smokers with high diastolic blood pressure were most affected by NH. ABPM may improve hypertension management in these patients.
| S-EPMC8030096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBlood pressure monitoring is critical to the timely diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. At-home self-monitoring techniques are highly effective in managing high blood pressure; however, evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of at-home self-monitoring compared with traditional monitoring in clinical settings remains unclear.ObjectiveTo identify and synthesize published research examining the cost-effectiveness of at-home blood pressure self-monitoring relative to monitoring in a clinical setting among patients with hypertension.Evidence reviewA systematic literature search of 5 databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL) followed by a backward citation search was conducted in September 2022. Full-text, peer-reviewed articles in English including patients with high blood pressure (systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mm Hg) at baseline were included. Data from studies comparing at-home self-monitoring with clinical-setting monitoring alternatives were extracted, and the outcomes of interest included incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios. Non-peer-reviewed studies or studies with pregnant women and children were excluded. To ensure accuracy and reliability, 2 authors independently evaluated all articles for eligibility and extracted relevant data from the selected articles.FindingsOf 1607 articles identified from 5 databases, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the US (6 [40%]) and in the UK (6 [40%]), and almost all studies (14 [90%]) used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. Nearly half the studies used quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1-mm Hg reduction in blood pressure as outcomes. Overall, at-home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) was found to be more cost-effective than monitoring in a clinical setting, particularly over a minimum 10-year time horizon. Among studies comparing HBPM alone vs 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter were found to be more cost-effective.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, at-home blood pressure self-monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous blood pressure measurements or combined with additional support or team-based care, demonstrated the potential to be cost-effective long-term compared with care in the physical clinical setting and could thus be prioritized for patients with hypertension from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.
| S-EPMC10663963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe stepped-care pathway (SCP) model has previously been found to be clinically effective for depressive disorder in some studies, but not all. Several groups have suggested that a stepped-care approach is the most appropriate in primary care. There is relatively little information, however, regarding which specific stepped-care pathway may be best. This analysis aimed to determine cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care pathway for depression in adults in primary care versus standard care (SC), treatment-as-usual (TAU), and online cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial with 1400 participants and 12-week follow-up to assess the impact of the four treatment options on health-related quality of life and depression severity. Costs for the groups were calculated on the basis of physician, outpatient, and inpatient services using administrative data. We then calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using this information. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplots were created using Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 replications. A subgroup analysis was conducted for participants who screened as depressed at baseline.ResultsFor all participants, TAU was the most expensive followed by CBT, SC, and SCP. QALYs were highest in SCP, followed by SC, CBT, and TAU. In the depressed subgroup, TAU was still the most expensive, followed by SC, SCP, and CBT, while QALYs were still highest in SCP, followed by SC, CBT, and TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggested that SCP had a higher probability for cost-effectiveness than the other three alternatives in all participants. In the depressed subgroup, CBT was associated with the highest probability of cost-effectiveness for a willingness-to-pay cut-off of less than approximately $50,000, while SCP was the highest at a cut-off higher than $50,000. There is considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimates.ConclusionsOur analysis showed that even where there are no clinically significant differences in health outcomes between treatment approaches, there may be economic benefit from implementing the stepped-care model. While more work is required to identify the most clinically effective versions of a stepped-care pathway, our findings suggest that the care pathway may have potential to improve health care system value.Trial registrationNCT01975207 . The trial was prospectively registered on 4 November 2013.
| S-EPMC6683422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPre-eclampsia is a pregnancy complication affecting both mother and fetus. Although there is no proven effective method to prevent pre-eclampsia, early identification of women at risk of pre-eclampsia could enhance appropriate application of antenatal care, management and treatment. Very little is known about the cost effectiveness of these and other tests for pre-eclampsia, mainly because there is no clear treatment path. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence on the health economics of screening, diagnosis and treatment options in pre-eclampsia.MethodsWe searched three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) for studies on screening, diagnosis, treatment or prevention of pre-eclampsia, published between 1994 and 2014. Only full papers written in English containing complete economic assessments in pre-eclampsia were included.ResultsFrom an initial total of 138 references, six papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three studies were on the cost effectiveness of treatment of pre-eclampsia, two of which evaluated magnesium sulphate for prevention of seizures and the third evaluated the cost effectiveness of induction of labour versus expectant monitoring. The other three studies were aimed at screening and diagnosis, in combination with subsequent preventive measures. The two studies on magnesium sulphate were equivocal on the cost effectiveness in non-severe cases, and the other study suggested that induction of labour in term pre-eclampsia was more cost effective than expectant monitoring. The screening studies were quite diverse in their objectives as well as in their conclusions. One study concluded that screening is probably not worthwhile, while two other studies stated that in certain scenarios it may be cost effective to screen all pregnant women and prophylactically treat those who are found to be at high risk of developing pre-eclampsia.DiscussionThis study is the first to provide a comprehensive overview on the economic aspects of pre-eclampsia in its broadest sense, ranging from screening to treatment options. The main limitation of the present study lies in the variety of topics in combination with the limited number of papers that could be included; this restricted the comparisons that could be made. In conclusion, novel biomarkers in screening for and diagnosing pre-eclampsia show promise, but their accuracy is a major driver of cost effectiveness, as is prevalence. Universal screening for pre-eclampsia, using a biomarker, will be feasible only when accuracy is significantly increased.
| S-EPMC4575369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) never receive alcohol treatment, and experts have recommended management of AUDs in primary care. The Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial was a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of a novel intervention for primary care patients at high risk for AUDs. This report describes the conceptual and scientific foundation of the CHOICE model of care, critical elements of the CHOICE trial design consistent with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), results of recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the enrolled sample.MethodsThe CHOICE intervention is a multi-contact, extended counseling intervention, based on the Chronic Care Model, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and evidence-based options for managing AUDs, designed to be practical in primary care. Outpatients who received care at 3 Veterans Affairs primary care sites in the Pacific Northwest and reported frequent heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day for women; ≥5 for men) were recruited (2011-2014) into a trial in which half of the participants would be offered additional alcohol-related care from a nurse. CHOICE nurses offered 12 months of patient-centered care, including proactive outreach and engagement, repeated brief motivational interventions, monitoring with and without alcohol biomarkers, medications for AUDs, and/or specialty alcohol treatment as appropriate and per patient preference. A CHOICE nurse practitioner was available to prescribe medications for AUDs.ResultsA total of 304 patients consented to participate in the CHOICE trial. Among consenting participants, 90% were men, the mean age was 51 (range 22-75), and most met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse (14%) or dependence (59%). Many participants also screened positive for tobacco use (44%), depression (45%), anxiety disorders (30-41%) and non-tobacco drug use disorders (19%). At baseline, participants had a median AUDIT score of 18 [Interquartile range (IQR) 14-24] and a median readiness to change drinking score of 5 (IQR 2.75-6.25) on a 1-10 Likert scale.ConclusionThe CHOICE trial tested a patient-centered intervention for AUDs and recruited primary care patients at high risk for AUDs, with a spectrum of severity, co-morbidity, and readiness to change drinking. Trial registration The trial is registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01400581).
| S-EPMC5436432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBoth incidence of breast cancer and survival have increased in recent years and there is a need to review follow up strategies. This study aims to assess the evidence for benefits of follow-up in different settings for women who have had treatment for early breast cancer.MethodA systematic review to identify key criteria for follow up and then address research questions. Key criteria were: 1) Risk of second breast cancer over time - incidence compared to general population. 2) Incidence and method of detection of local recurrence and second ipsi and contra-lateral breast cancer. 3) Level 1-4 evidence of the benefits of hospital or alternative setting follow-up for survival and well-being. Data sources to identify criteria were MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PSYCHINFO, ZETOC, Health Management Information Consortium, Science Direct. For the systematic review to address research questions searches were performed using MEDLINE (2011). Studies included were population studies using cancer registry data for incidence of new cancers, cohort studies with long term follow up for recurrence and detection of new primaries and RCTs not restricted to special populations for trials of alternative follow up and lifestyle interventions.ResultsWomen who have had breast cancer have an increased risk of a second primary breast cancer for at least 20 years compared to the general population. Mammographically detected local recurrences or those detected by women themselves gave better survival than those detected by clinical examination. Follow up in alternative settings to the specialist clinic is acceptable to women but trials are underpowered for survival.ConclusionsLong term support, surveillance mammography and fast access to medical treatment at point of need may be better than hospital based surveillance limited to five years but further large, randomised controlled trials are needed.
| S-EPMC3502561 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & aimsMusculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.MethodsA systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.ResultsModerate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.ConclusionThis review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.
| S-EPMC5480856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effect of brief interventions during the "watchful waiting" period for hypertension.DesignFactorial trial.SettingGeneral practice.Methods296 patients with blood pressure > 160/90 mm Hg were randomised to eight groups defined by three factors: an information booklet; low sodium, high potassium salt; prompt sheets for high fruit, vegetable, fibre; and low fat.Main outcome measuresBlood pressure (primary outcome); secondary outcomes of diet, weight, and dietary biomarkers (urinary sodium:potassium (Na:K) ratio; carotenoid concentrations).ResultsBlood pressure was not affected by the booklet (mean difference (diastolic blood pressure) at one month 0.2, 95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.0), salt (0.13; 1.7 to 2.0), or prompts (0.52; 1.3 to 2.4). The salt decreased Na:K ratio (difference 0.32; 0.08 to 0.56, P = 0.01), and the prompts helped control weight (difference 0.39 (0.85 to 0.05) kg at one month, P = 0.085; 1.2 (0.1 to 2.25) kg at six months, P = 0.03). Among those with lower fruit and vegetable consumption (< 300 g per day), prompts increased fruit and vegetable consumption and also carotenoid concentrations (difference 143 (16 to 269) mmol/l, P < 0.03) but did not decrease blood pressure.ConclusionDuring watchful waiting, over and above the effect of brief advice and monitoring, an information booklet, lifestyle prompts, and low sodium salt do not reduce blood pressure. Secondary analysis suggests that brief interventions-particularly lifestyle prompts-can make useful changes in diet and help control weight, which previous research indicates are likely to reduce the long term risk of stroke.
| S-EPMC403849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the relative accuracy of clinic measurements and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference standard for the diagnosis of hypertension.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Methodological quality was appraised, including evidence of validation of blood pressure measurement equipment.Data sourcesMedline (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Medion, ARIF, and TRIP up to May 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Eligible studies examined diagnosis of hypertension in adults of all ages using home and/or clinic blood pressure measurement compared with those made using ambulatory monitoring that clearly defined thresholds to diagnose hypertension.ResultsThe 20 eligible studies used various thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension, and only seven studies (clinic) and three studies (home) could be directly compared with ambulatory monitoring. Compared with ambulatory monitoring thresholds of 135/85 mm Hg, clinic measurements over 140/90 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% (95% confidence interval 60.7% to 84.8%) and 74.6% (47.9% to 90.4%), respectively, whereas home measurements over 135/85 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% (78.0% to 91.0%) and 62.4% (48.0% to 75.0%).ConclusionsNeither clinic nor home measurement had sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be recommended as a single diagnostic test. If ambulatory monitoring is taken as the reference standard, then treatment decisions based on clinic or home blood pressure alone might result in substantial overdiagnosis. Ambulatory monitoring before the start of lifelong drug treatment might lead to more appropriate targeting of treatment, particularly around the diagnostic threshold.
| S-EPMC3122300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionChronic kidney disease (CKD) is widely prevalent, associated with morbidity and mortality, but may be lessened with timely implementation of evidence-based strategies including blood pressure (BP) control. Nonetheless, an evidence-practice gap persists. We synthesize the evidence for clinician-facing interventions to improve hypertension management in CKD patients in primary care.MethodsElectronic databases and related publications were queried for relevant studies. We used a conceptual model to address heterogeneity of interventions. We conducted a quantitative synthesis of interventions on blood pressure (BP) outcomes and a narrative synthesis of other CKD relevant clinical outcomes. Planned subgroup analyses were performed by (1) study design (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized studies (NRS)); (2) intervention type (guideline-concordant decision support, shared care, pharmacist-facing); and (3) use of behavioral/implementation theory.ResultsOf 2704 manuscripts screened, 73 underwent full-text review; 22 met inclusion criteria. BP target achievement was reported in 15 and systolic BP reduction in 6 studies. Among RCTs, all interventions had a significant effect on BP control, (pooled OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38). Subgroup analysis by intervention type showed significant effects for guideline-concordant decision support (pooled OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.27) but not shared care (pooled OR 1.71; 95% CI 0.96 to 3.03) or pharmacist-facing interventions (pooled OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.34). Subgroup analysis finding was replicated with pooling of RCTs and NRS. The five contributing studies showed large and significant reduction in systolic BP (pooled WMD - 3.86; 95% CI - 7.2 to - 0.55). Use of a behavioral/implementation theory had no impact, while RCTs showed smaller effect sizes than NRS.DiscussionProcess-oriented implementation strategies used with guideline-concordant decision support was a promising implementation approach. Better reporting guidelines on implementation would enable more useful synthesis of the efficacy of CKD clinical interventions integrated into primary care.Prospero registration numberCRD42018102441.
| S-EPMC7652970 | biostudies-literature