Self-monitoring and self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) is a novel intervention which improves blood pressure control. However, little evidence exists regarding the cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood pressure in general and self-management in particular. This study aimed to evaluate whether self-management of hypertension was cost-effective.
Design and methods:
A cohort Markov model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken extrapolating to up to 35 years from cost and outcome data collected from the telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension trial (TASMINH2). Self-management of hypertension was compared with usual care in terms of lifetime costs, quality adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness using a UK Health Service perspective. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness over time from self-management.
Results:
In the long-term, when compared with usual care, self-management was more effective by 0.24 and 0.12 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient for men and women, respectively. The resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for self-management was £1624 per QALY for men and £4923 per QALY for women. There was at least a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective for both sexes at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses around the assumptions made, provided that the effects of self-management lasted at least two years for men and five years for women.
Conclusion:
Self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensives and telemonitoring of blood pressure measurements not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of health care resources.
Joint Health Surveys Unit. Health survey for England 2006, London: HMSO, 2006.
2.
NHS Information Centre. Quality and Outcomes Framework 2008/09. Online GP practice results database. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/qof (2009, accessed 11 March 2012).
3.
AllenNBerryJDNingH. Impact of blood pressure and blood pressure change during middle age on the remaining lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease: The cardiovascular lifetime risk pooling project. Circulation2012; 125: 37–44.
4.
LawMRMorrisJKWaldNJ. Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: Meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ2009; 338: b1665–b1665.
5.
DickinsonHOMasonJMNicolsonDJ. Lifestyle interventions to reduce raised blood pressure: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Hypertens2006; 24: 215–233.
6.
McAndrewLSchneiderSHBurnsE. Does patient blood glucose monitoring improve diabetes control? A systematic review of the literature. Diabetes Educ2007; 33: 991–1011.
7.
LeviM. Self-management of anticoagulation. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther2008; 6: 979–985.
8.
McManusRJMantJBrayEP. Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet2010; 376: 163–172.
9.
SoghikianKCasperSMFiremanBH. Home blood pressure monitoring. Effect on use of medical services and medical care costs. Med Care1992; 30: 855–865.
10.
ReedSDLiYOddoneEZ. Economic evaluation of home blood pressure monitoring with or without telephonic behavioral self-management in patients with hypertension. Am J Hypertens2010; 23: 142–148.
11.
McManusRJMantJRoalfeA. Targets and self monitoring in hypertension: Randomised controlled trial and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ2005; 331: 493–493.
12.
FukunagaHOhkuboTKobayashiM. Cost-effectiveness of the introduction of home blood pressure measurement in patients with office hypertension. J Hypertens2008; 26: 685–690.
13.
MadsenLBChristiansenTKirkegaardP. Economic evaluation of home blood pressure telemonitoring: A randomized controlled trial. Blood Press2011; 20: 117–125.
14.
ChapmanRHKowalSLCherrySB. The modeled lifetime cost-effectiveness of published adherence-improving interventions for antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications. Value Health2010; 13: 685–694.
15.
RichardsonGSculpherMKennedyA. Is self-care a cost-effective use of resources? Evidence from a randomized trial in inflammatory bowel disease. J Health Serv Res Policy2006; 11: 225–230.
16.
McManusRJBrayEPMantJ. Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension: Telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension. [ISRCTN17585681]. BMC Cardiovasc Disord2009; 9: 6–6.
17.
McManusRJRyanRJonesM. How representative of primary care are research active practices? Cross-sectional survey. Fam Pract2008; 25: 56–62.
18.
British Medical Association. British Medical Association and NHS Employers. Quality and Outcomes Framework guidance. 3rd revision. London: BMA, 2009.
SonnenbergFABeckJR. Markov models in medical decision making: A practical guide. Med Decis Making1993; 13: 322–338.
22.
BeckJRPaukerSG. The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making1983; 3: 419–458.
23.
D'AgostinoRBSrVasanRSPencinaMJ. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation2008; 117: 743–753.
24.
National Clinical Guideline Centre. Unstable angina and NSTEMI: The early management of unstable angina and non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. (CG94), London: Royal College of Physicians, 2010.
25.
De GiuliFKhawKTCowieMR. Incidence and outcome of persons with a clinical diagnosis of heart failure in a general practice population of 696,884 in the United Kingdom. Eur J Heart Fail2005; 7: 295–302.
26.
Bronnum-HansenHJorgensenTDavidsenM. Survival and cause of death after myocardial infarction: The Danish MONICA study. J Clin Epidemiol2001; 54: 1244–1250.
27.
LengGCLeeAJFowkesFG. Incidence, natural history and cardiovascular events in symptomatic and asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the general population. Int J Epidemiol1996; 25: 1172–1181.
28.
MehtaPADubreySWMcIntyreHF. Improving survival in the 6 months after diagnosis of heart failure in the past decade: Population-based data from the UK. Heart2009; 95: 1851–1856.
29.
VolminkJANewtonJNHicksNR. Coronary event and case fatality rates in an English population: Results of the Oxford myocardial infarction incidence study. The Oxford Myocardial Infarction Incidence Study Group. Heart1998; 80: 40–44.
30.
BamfordJSandercockPDennisM. A prospective study of acute cerebrovascular disease in the community: The Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project – 1981–86. 2. Incidence, case fatality rates and overall outcome at one year of cerebral infarction, primary intracerebral and subarachnoid haemorrhage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1990; 53: 16–22.
31.
AndersonKMOdellPMWilsonPW. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J1991; 121: 293–298.
32.
WoodDKotsevaKFoxKCoronary heart disease. In: StevensARafteryJMantJ (eds). Health care needs assessment: The epidemiologically based needs assessment reviews, 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Radcliffe Medical Press Ltd, 2004, pp. 373–448.
33.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, London: NICE, 2004.
34.
DrummondMFSculpherMJO'BrienB. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
PalmerSSculpherMPhilipsZ. A cost effectiveness model comparing alternative management strategies for the use of glycoprotein iiB/iiiA antagonists in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, 2004.
37.
YoumanPWilsonKHarrafF. The economic burden of stroke in the United Kingdom. Pharmacoeconomics2003; 21: 43–50.
38.
CooperANhereraLCalvertN. Clinical guidelines and evidence review for lipid modification: Cardiovascular risk assessment and the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners, 2008.
39.
Kind P, Hardman G and Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D: Discussion paper 172. York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, 1999.
40.
BlackWC. The CE plane: A graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making1990; 10: 212–214.
41.
BriggsAHGrayAM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess1999; 3: 1–134.
Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. Effects on 11-year mortality and morbidity of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin for about 5 years in 20,536 high-risk individuals: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet2011; 378: 2013–2020.
44.
BosworthHBOlsenMKGrubberJM. Two self-management interventions to improve hypertension control: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med2009; 151: 687–695.
45.
Rodondi N, Locatelli I, Aujesky D, et al. for the Health ABC Study. Framingham Risk Score and Alternatives for Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease in Older Adults. PLoS One 2012; 7: e34287.
46.
JowettSBryanSMurrayE. Patient self-management of anticoagulation therapy: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Br J Haematol2006; 134: 632–639.
47.
LahdensuoAHaahtelaTHerralaJ. Randomised comparison of cost effectiveness of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma in Finland. BMJ1998; 316: 1138–1139.
48.
World Health Organisation. Global health risks: Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks, Geneva: WHO Press, 2009.
49.
Gomez-MarcosMAGonzalez-ElenaLJRecio-RodriguezJI. Cardiovascular risk assessment in hypertensive patients with tests recommended by the European Guidelines on Hypertension. EJPC2012; 19: 515–522.
50.
Godet-MardirossianHGirerdXVernayM. Patterns of hypertension management in France (ENNS 2006–2007). EJPC2012; 19: 213–220.
51.
BriggsAClaxtonKSculpherM. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
