Cost-effectiveness Of Hypertension Treatment Research Articles

Cost-Effectiveness of Hypertension Treatment by Pharmacists in Black Barbershops.

In LABBPS (Los Angeles Barbershop Blood Pressure Study), pharmacist-led hypertension care in Los Angeles County Black-owned barbershops significantly improved blood pressure control in non-Hispanic Black men with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline. In this analysis, 10-year health outcomes and health care costs of 1 year of the LABBPS intervention versus control are projected. A discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes projected blood pressure, medication-related adverse events, fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and noncardiovascular disease death in LABBPS participants. Program costs, total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for the LABBPS intervention and control arms from a health care sector perspective over a 10-year horizon. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. High and intermediate cost-effectiveness thresholds were defined as <$50 000 and <$150 000 per QALY gained, respectively. At 10 years, the intervention was projected to cost an average of $2356 (95% uncertainty interval, -$264 to $4611) more per participant than the control arm and gain 0.06 (95% uncertainty interval, 0.01-0.10) QALYs. The LABBPS intervention was highly cost-effective, with a mean cost of $42 717 per QALY gained (58% probability of being highly and 96% of being at least intermediately cost-effective). Exclusive use of generic drugs improved the cost-effectiveness to $17 162 per QALY gained. The LABBPS intervention would be only intermediately cost-effective if pharmacists were less likely to intensify antihypertensive medications when systolic blood pressure was ≥150 mm Hg or if pharmacist weekly time driving to barbershops increased. Hypertension care delivered by clinical pharmacists in Black barbershops is a highly cost-effective way to improve blood pressure control in Black men.

RESOURCE MAINTENANCE TREATMENT OF ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION IN OUTPATIENT CLINICS

Due to the significant financial costs associated with the management of arterial hypertension (HTN), the optimization of health care resource distribution is required. Objective. To study the resource maintenance treatment of HTN in outpatient clinics. design and methods. The study included two stages. Firstly, we selected a sample of primary HTN patients based on the screening of primary medical records (n = 1766). Secondly, we performed a telephone survey 6 months after the inclusion (n = 1419). Results. Outpatients are characterized by a high frequency of visits to the doctor: 2,9 physician’s counseling, 2,6 cardiologist’s counseling, 0.21 cases of medical emergencies, 0.08 hospitalizations per 1 patient for 6 months on average. Significant use of health care resources was found in the following groups: patients aged 60 years and older, who periodically or regularly measure blood pressure (BP), regularly take antihypertensive therapy (AHT), those who have drug incentives, do not use fixed combinations, with uncontrolled BP, coronary heart disease (СHD), who take 3 or more antihypertensive drugs, who changed or withdrew the recommended AHT. Although achieving target BP is associated with a reduced likelihood of medical emergency calls and outpatient physician’s counseling, there was not difference in the number of hospitalizations between the groups with achieved target BP and the group with uncontrolled HTN. Total direct costs for 6 months composed 9 283,13 rubles per one study participant. Factors associated with a higher total direct costs included age 60 years or older, a high level of self-monitoring of BP, regular intake of AHT, the opportunity of drug incentives, the presence of СHD, uncontrolled HTN, multiple combination antihypertensive therapy (3 drugs and more), no use of fixed combinations, changes or withdrawal of recommended AHT. Conclusions. Our analysis of resource provision and cost-effectiveness of HTN treatment allowed to identify the groups of patients with inappropriate resource expenses. These data demonstrate the need for targeted interventions in order to reduce the economic burden of HTN.

Evaluation of the awareness, control and cost-effectiveness of hypertension treatment in a Brazilian city: populational study

Hypertension is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, constituting one of the main risk factors for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The aims of this study were to evaluate the level of awareness and control of hypertension comparing sex, socioeconomic and educational level, BMI and drug therapy in over 40-year-old patients. The cost-effectiveness of the main pharmacologic classes of antihypertensives, as monotherapy and combination therapy, was also assessed. In this randomized and cross-sectional populational study, a sample of 738 hypertensive adults with ages at least 40 years were evaluated. Of these, 345 (46.7%) were men and 393 (53.3%) were women. A total of 72.9% of the hypertensives knew about their disease. Women in the 40-49 and 50-59 age groups and obese individuals had a higher rate of awareness of their hypertensive status. The rates of awareness were similar in different social classes and educational levels, however, blood pressure control varied. beta-Blockers were the most effective drugs to control blood pressure with no differences being observed between monotherapy and combinations. Diuretics were the most cost-effective. Approximately half of the participants received monotherapy. The best percentage of control with monotherapy was obtained with beta-blockers but the diuretics treatment was the most cost-effective. The levels of awareness and control were high compared with developed countries, most evident in the higher social classes and higher education levels.

Cost-effectiveness of hypertension treatment: a population-based study.

The cost-effectiveness of the treatment of hypertension has scarcely been investigated in population-based studies. Most data come from secondary analysis of clinical trials and administrative sources. To describe the health care costs for outpatient hypertension treatment in comparison with diabetes mellitus and chronic bronchitis, and to examine the cost-effectiveness of different classes of antihypertensive drugs. Cross-sectional population-based study. Urban area of Pelotas, southern Brazil. Individuals aged 20-69 years, identified through multi-stage probability sampling. Participants were interviewed at home. Demographic data, education, income, smoking, previous morbidity, use of medicine and other characteristics were assessed via a pre-tested questionnaire, and blood pressure while seated was measured in a standardized way. Approximately 24% of the participants had high blood pressure or were taking antihypertensive drugs, and among these, 33% had had a physician consultation during the month preceding the interview. The monthly mean costs of care for hypertension (R$ 89.90), diabetes (R$ 80.64) and bronchitis (R$ 92.63) were similar. Treatment of hypertension consumed 22.9% of the per-capita income, corresponding to R$ 392.76 spent per year exclusively on antihypertensive drugs. Most of the direct costs associated with hypertension and diabetes were spent on drugs, while patients with bronchitis had greater expenditure on appointments. The cost-effectiveness relationship was more favorable for diuretics (116.3) and beta blockers (228.5) than for ACE inhibitors (608.5) or calcium channel blockers (762.0). The costs of hypertension care are mainly dependent on the expenditure on blood pressure-lowering drugs. Treatment of hypertension with diuretics or beta blockers was more cost-effective than treatment with ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers.

Pharmacoeconomic considerations in the management of hypertension.

Hypertension is highly prevalent in developed and developing countries (more than 30% of the adult population when a threshold value of 140/90 mm Hg is selected). It constitutes one of the major cardiovascular risk factors and accounts for more than 5% of total deaths worldwide. The economic impact of hypertension is enormous, representing $US23.74 billion in the US in 1995 and approximately $US1685 million in Spain in 1994. Direct costs amount to more than 50% of the total costs of hypertension, and almost 70% of these are attributable to drug treatment. Furthermore, hypertensive patients use medical services 50% more than normotensive individuals, and hypertension represents one of the 3 leading causes of visits to primary healthcare centres. When considering the cost effectiveness of hypertension treatment, there is no doubt that it is cost effective in comparison with other interventions, although some controversies exist, mainly with respect to mild-to-moderate hypertension and to the long term versus short term benefits. The controversy about the absolute risk of hypertension influences the cost-effectiveness analysis. Because of the limitations of the available cost-effectiveness analyses, it is currently impossible to recommend the use of any particular antihypertensive drug for all patients with hypertension. Consequently, the choice of antihypertensive in any patient should be guided by clinical experience and the recommendations of the present international guidelines.

Compliance, quality of life, and cost effectiveness

Introduction Fewer than a half of people in the United States with high blood pressure are currently on treatment and of these less than half have their blood pressures controlled to less than 140/90 mm Hg [1]. Similar results have been found in New Zealand, Italy, and Spain [2–4] The limited success in controlling blood pressure stems from multiple factors including uncertainty of patients about the benefits of treatment for this silent disease, failures of patient compliance, adverse effects of medications, less than optimal efforts by physicians to encourage patients to adhere to regimens, and failures of the health-care system to reduce barriers to continued care. This article reviews recent studies on patient compliance and the measurement of the quality of life and then summarizes their implications for the cost-effectiveness of treatment for hypertension. Very few recent clinical trials have directly evaluated interventions to improve patien compliance or have directly examined the effects of treatment on the quality of life in hypertensives. Most available studies are retrospective and either observational or meta-analytic in nature.

Cost-effectiveness of hypertension treatment.

The benefits of antihypertensive treatment are influenced by both the absolute initial cardiovascular risk, and the relative reduction. Because age is a major determinant of the absolute cardiovascular risk, and because the strategies for hypertension diagnosis and treatment are not very much influenced by age, hypertension management appears to be more cost-effective after the age of 45, in both men and women. Below this age, the absolute gain in life-years seems to be smaller, and sensitivity analysis demonstrate an important influence on the results of assumptions about the effects of treatment on quality of life and the discounting rate.

'White-coat' hypertension in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension: evaluation of prevalence by ambulatory monitoring and impact on cost of health care.

To evaluate the prevalence of 'white-coat' hypertension in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, 255 subjects (131 males and 124 females) underwent 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Patients with 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure < 135/85 mmHg were classified as white-coat hypertensives and the remaining as sustained hypertensives. On the assumption that white-coat hypertensives may not need to take antihypertensive medication, we evaluated the impact on cost of health care of two strategies based essentially on treating all patients according to casual blood pressure, or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, followed by drug treatment in sustained hypertensives only. Of the 255 hypertensives studied, 54 (21%), confidence interval 16%, 26%, were classified as white-coat hypertensives. The age, sex-ratio and body mass index did not differ between the white-coat and the sustained hypertensive subjects. The strategy of monitoring all patients and of treating only the sustained hypertensives resulted in a substantial coat saving, which was calculated to be about 110,000 U.S.A. dollars over a period of 6 years. In conclusion, white-coat hypertensives are frequent among patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, and they do not differ from sustained hypertensives as regards demographic data. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, when used to decide whether or not to treat pharmacologically, increases the cost-effectiveness of treatment for hypertension and reduces the cost of health care.

The Cost Effectiveness of Hypertension Treatment in Sweden

The aim of this study was to carry out an analysis of the cost effectiveness of antihypertensive drug treatment in different patient groups in Sweden. The cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated as net costs (treatment costs minus reduced costs of cardiovascular morbidity) divided by the number of life-years gained (the increase in life expectancy). The analysis was based on the reduction of coronary heart disease and stroke in the most recent meta-analysis of antihypertensive treatment, to which Swedish cost data were applied. We found that the cost per life-year gained decreases with age for both men and women, and is relatively low for middle-aged and older patients, even when the diastolic blood pressure (DBP) range is 90 to 94mm Hg. In conclusion, the results indicate that, in Sweden, antihypertensive treatment is generally cost effective in middle-aged and older patients with a DBP of > or = 90 mm Hg. However, it is questionable whether it is generally cost effective to treat younger patients with mild hypertension.

Opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment for hypertension.

Opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment for hypertension.

Opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment for hypertension.

The cost-effectiveness of treatment for hypertension depends on the pretreatment level of blood pressure, age and sex of the patient, presence of other cardiovascular risk factors, long-term control of blood pressure, and the annual costs of treatment. Treatment of very mild hypertension (diastolic blood pressure, 90-94 mm Hg), even if the benefits do exceed the risks, does not appear to be particularly cost-effective. Opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of hypertension management lie in 1) avoidance of patient mislabeling by careful documentation of blood pressures on multiple occasions in the office and during usual activities outside the office before the diagnosis is made and treatment is begun; 2) efforts to increase adherence to scheduled visits and medication regimens; 3) attempts to step-down dosages or discontinue medications after periods of good blood pressure control; 4) explicit consideration of costs, as well as benefits, in decisions on the needed frequency of office visits, choice of medications, and use of laboratory tests; and 5) efforts to improve practice efficiency. Future practice guidelines for hypertension management should take these factors into account and should make trade-offs between benefits, risks, and costs explicit for specific types of patients.

Cost and quality trade-offs in the treatment of hypertension.

The cost-effectiveness of treatment for hypertension is positively related to the level of pretreatment blood pressure and to the level of success in achieving patient adherence to prescribed medical regimens. Opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment include limiting treatment to patients with well-documented sustained increases in blood pressure, giving higher priority to the treatment of patients with diastolic blood pressures of 100 mm Hg and above, and relying on lower-cost medications if clinical responses to treatment permit. In patients with mild hypertension, a comparison of strategies for initiating pharmacological treatment that takes into account potential side effects as well as the costs of medications indicates a difference of $270/patient-yr between the least and most expensive alternatives. Whether the additional costs of more expensive treatment strategies are "worth it" depend on any additional health benefits actually conferred. Moreover, higher-cost strategies may have negative influences on patients' decisions to adhere to prescribed regimens or to continue in treatment. Cost is a particular problem for the treatment of chronic conditions like hypertension because of inadequate insurance coverage for medications, especially for the poor.