Data_Sheet_1_Home blood pressure measurement for hypertension management in the real world: Do not just measure, but share with your physician.PDF

IntroductionStudies of the effectiveness of home blood pressure (BP) measurement on the treatment of hypertension in the real world are sparse, and the results are controversial. There is an efficacy-effectiveness gap in the treatment of hypertension using home BP measurements. We aimed to investigate the effect of reporting home BP to physicians on ambulatory BP control as a factor contributing to the efficacy-effectiveness gap in treating patients with hypertension.MethodsWe recruited patients ≥20 years of age taking antihypertensive drugs. Office and 24-h ambulatory BP were measured. A questionnaire to the measurement of home BP was conducted. Participants were divided into an HBPM(−) group, home BP was not measured (n = 467); HBPM(+)-R(−) group, home BP was measured but not reported (n = 81); and HBPM(+)-R(+) group, home BP was measured and reported (n = 125).ResultsThe HBPM(+)-R(+) group had significantly lower office systolic BP (SBP, p = 0.035), 24-h SBP (p = 0.009), and daytime SBP (p = 0.016) than the HBPM(−) group, and lower nighttime SBP (p = 0.005) and diastolic BP (DBP, p = 0.008) than the HBPM(+)-R(−) group. In the multivariate analysis, the differences in 24-h SBP, daytime SBP, and nighttime DBP remained significant. There was a significant difference between groups in the target achievement rate of 24-h SBP (p = 0.046), nighttime SBP (p = 0.021), and nighttime DBP (p = 0.023). The nighttime SBP and DBP target achievement rates in the HBPM(+)-R(+) group were higher than those in the HBPM(+)-R(−) group (p = 0.006 and 0.010, respectively). Among patients measuring home BP, the adjusted odds ratio for 24-h and nighttime BP target achievement in the HBPM(+)-R(+) group were 2.233 and 3.658, respectively.ConclusionHome BP measurements should be reported to the treating physician to effectively manage hypertension.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT03868384.</p

Table_1_Home blood pressure measurement for hypertension management in the real world: Do not just measure, but share with your physician.docx

IntroductionStudies of the effectiveness of home blood pressure (BP) measurement on the treatment of hypertension in the real world are sparse, and the results are controversial. There is an efficacy-effectiveness gap in the treatment of hypertension using home BP measurements. We aimed to investigate the effect of reporting home BP to physicians on ambulatory BP control as a factor contributing to the efficacy-effectiveness gap in treating patients with hypertension.MethodsWe recruited patients ≥20 years of age taking antihypertensive drugs. Office and 24-h ambulatory BP were measured. A questionnaire to the measurement of home BP was conducted. Participants were divided into an HBPM(−) group, home BP was not measured (n = 467); HBPM(+)-R(−) group, home BP was measured but not reported (n = 81); and HBPM(+)-R(+) group, home BP was measured and reported (n = 125).ResultsThe HBPM(+)-R(+) group had significantly lower office systolic BP (SBP, p = 0.035), 24-h SBP (p = 0.009), and daytime SBP (p = 0.016) than the HBPM(−) group, and lower nighttime SBP (p = 0.005) and diastolic BP (DBP, p = 0.008) than the HBPM(+)-R(−) group. In the multivariate analysis, the differences in 24-h SBP, daytime SBP, and nighttime DBP remained significant. There was a significant difference between groups in the target achievement rate of 24-h SBP (p = 0.046), nighttime SBP (p = 0.021), and nighttime DBP (p = 0.023). The nighttime SBP and DBP target achievement rates in the HBPM(+)-R(+) group were higher than those in the HBPM(+)-R(−) group (p = 0.006 and 0.010, respectively). Among patients measuring home BP, the adjusted odds ratio for 24-h and nighttime BP target achievement in the HBPM(+)-R(+) group were 2.233 and 3.658, respectively.ConclusionHome BP measurements should be reported to the treating physician to effectively manage hypertension.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT03868384.</p

Value stream mapping results.

<p>Value stream mapping results.</p

Value stream map of median wait and service times for 15 clinic visits among recently hospitalized people living with HIV in South Africa (not to scale).

<p>Value stream map of median wait and service times for 15 clinic visits among recently hospitalized people living with HIV in South Africa (not to scale).</p

TreeAge model outline for ACF and semi-PCF.

Each branch represents one possible instance. The comment below the node indicates the possibility of each node. The total cost of the branch is written next to the terminal node. CXR = chest X-ray, ACF = active case finding, semi-PCF = passive case finding, F/U = follow-up, TB = tuberculosis, SC = sputum culture test, AFB = acid-fast bacillus.</p

Cost-effectiveness rankings report of the model.

BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) is one of the serious infectious diseases in South Korea, with 49 new cases per 100,000 people and 629 multi-drug resistant (MDR) cases reported in 2020. TB is increasing among immigrants in S. Korea, and various TB case finding strategies are being performed for screening. We compared active case finding (ACF) with passive case finding (semi-PCF) across epidemiological characteristics and investigated a cost-effective strategy for screening immigrants for TB.MethodsACF driven by non-governmental organizations and semi-PCF as part of the government’s visa renewal process using CXR with additional acid-fast bacilli (AFB) smear and cultures were performed. Epidemiological parameters were compared between the two TB screening projects, and costs were collected. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a decision analysis model from the health system perspective. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per averted TB case. Additional probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.ResultsACF (2.02%) showed a higher TB prevalence rate than semi-PCF (0.67%) on CXR. For subjects older than 60 years, the suspected TB rate on CXR was significantly higher in ACF (36.6%) than in semi-PCF (12.2%) (PConclusionACF found more TB cases than semi-PCF through CXR screening, and suspect cases with old age and family visa type were more common in ACF than in semi-PCF. ACF is cost-effective as a TB screening strategy for immigrants.</div

Proportion of suspected TB by age group in ACF with CXR and semi-PCF with CXR.

Proportion of suspected TB by age group in ACF with CXR and semi-PCF with CXR.</p

Impact of parameters used in this model on the cost-effectiveness of ACF with CXR and semi-PCF with CXR.

The bars represent the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at the lower (black bar) and higher (gray bar) values for each variable. TB = tuberculosis, CXR = chest X-ray, ACF = active case finding, semi-PCF = passive case finding, SC = sputum culture test.</p

Proportion of suspected TB by region of origin in ACF with CXR and semi-PCF with CXR.

Proportion of suspected TB by region of origin in ACF with CXR and semi-PCF with CXR.</p

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations at a WTP threshold of $1,500.

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations at a WTP threshold of $1,500.</p