ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2025
Effect of Systolic Blood Pressure Measurement Error on the Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive Blood Pressure Targets.
Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnalyses of clinical trials find that an intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of less than 120 mm Hg is cost-effective compared with a target of less than 140 mm Hg for patients at high cardiovascular disease risk. However, guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend a target of less than 130 mm Hg, citing blood pressure measurement error in routine practice.
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of measurement error on the cost-effectiveness of intensive SBP targets.
designMicrosimulation model varying SBP measurement error. DATA SOURCES: SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) data and published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Patients at high cardiovascular risk. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector.
interventionSBP targets of less than 120 mm Hg, less than 130 mm Hg, and less than 140 mm Hg. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: With research-grade SBP measurement (mean error, 0 mm Hg), the ICER for the target of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 130 mm Hg was $24 400 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). With average measurement error (mean error, 7.3 mm Hg in the <120-mm Hg target), the ICER increased to $42 000 per QALY. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The ICER for the target of less than 120 mm Hg was greater than $100 000 per QALY in scenarios with high error (mean error, ≥14.6 mm Hg in the <120-mm Hg target), when an inflection point for increasing risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) was at or above 116 mm Hg, and in scenarios with a medication-taking disutility of at least 0.003 per antihypertensive medication. LIMITATION: Uncertainty in the relationship between low treated SBP (for example, <115 mm Hg) and cardiovascular risk.
conclusionFor SPRINT-eligible patients at high cardiovascular risk without diabetes or prior stroke, a target of less than 120 mm Hg seems cost-effective across most settings with SBP measurement error. In scenarios with high error and an increase in CVD risk at low SBPs, a target of less than 130 mm Hg may become cost-effective. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Science Foundation and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.