PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11219475

Delphi panel study of current hypertension treatment patterns.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether, and to what extent, usual practice in the management of patients with mild to moderate hypertension differs from that recommended in the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-VI). The results were used as input for a clinical decision analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of a new treatment for hypertension. METHODS: A Delphi panel survey of general practitioners and cardiologists in the United States was conducted to determine current strategies for the treatment of mild to moderate uncomplicated hypertension. The purpose of the panel survey was to reach consensus on 3 key facets of the JNC-VI guidelines and how they relate to the respondents' clinical practices: (1) the definition of mild to moderate hypertension, (2) the treatment that adult patients with uncomplicated mild to moderate hypertension should receive, and (3) the management of patient follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 20 physicians contacted for the survey, 10 responded to both rounds of the questionnaire. There was considerable variation in the responses for defining the ranges of healthy, acceptable, unacceptable, and serious blood pressure. In general, the Delphi panel respondents cited higher limits than stated in the JNC-VI guidelines. Physicians followed the guidelines approximately 60% of the time. Primary determinants of initial drug choice among the panelists were comorbid conditions and the severity of hypertension; patients' age, race, and sex were secondary determinants. Follow-up typically occurred 1 month after therapy initiation. Panelists reported titrating the dose of new therapies upward once or twice before discontinuing the drug for lack of efficacy. Once adequate blood pressure control was achieved, patient follow-up was reported to occur every 3 to 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi panel study highlights the differences between clinical practice and the JNC-VI guidelines in the treatment of hypertension. The results were used as a basis for defining a structure for a cost-effectiveness model and provided the management practice and prescribing practice patterns required by the model.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Richter, C Ostrowski, M P Dombeck, K Gondek, J L Hutchinson. 2001. Delphi panel study of current hypertension treatment patterns.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2918(01)80038-2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990-2004.

BACKGROUND: Studies published in non-English languages are systematically missing in systematic reviews of growth and quality of economic evaluations of health care. The aims of this study were: to characterize German evaluations, published in English or German-language, in terms of various key parameters; to investigate methods to derive quality-of-life weights in cost-utility studies; and to examine changes in study characteristics over the years. METHODS: We conducted a country-specific systematic review of the German and English-language literature of German economic evaluations (assessment of or application to the German health care system) published 1990-2004. Generic and specialized health economic databases were searched. Two independent reviewers verified fulfillment of inclusion criteria and extracted study characteristics. RESULTS: The fulltexts of 730 articles were reviewed of which 283 fulfilled all entry criteria. 32% of included studies were published in German-language. 51% of studies evaluated pharmaceuticals and 63% were cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic appraisals concentrate on few disease categories and important health areas are strongly underrepresented. Declaration of sponsorship was associated with article language (49% English articles vs. 29% German articles, p < 0.001). The methodology used to obtain quality-of-life weights in published cost-utility studies was very diverse, poorly reported and most studies did not use German patients' or community health state evaluations. CONCLUSION: Many of the German-language evaluations included in our study are likely to be missing in international reviews and may be systematically different from English-language reviews from Germany. Lack of transparency and adherence to recommended reporting practices constitute a serious problem in German economic evaluations.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Optimal nonpoint source pollution control strategies for a reservoir watershed in Taiwan.

The purpose of this study is to develop a model for optimal nonpoint source pollution control for the Fei-Tsui Reservoir watershed in Northern Taiwan. Several structural best management practices (BMPs) are selected to treat stormwater runoff. The complete model consists of two interacting components: an optimization model based on discrete differential dynamic programming (DDDP) and a zero-dimensional reservoir water quality model. A predefined procedure is used to locate suitable sites for construction of various selected BMPs in the watershed. In the optimization model, the objective function is to find the best combination of BMP type and placement, which minimizes the total construction and operation, maintenance, and repair (OMR) costs of the BMPs. The constraints are the water quality standards for total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations in the reservoir. A zero-dimensional reservoir water quality model of the Vollenweider type is embedded in the optimization framework to simulate pollutant concentrations in Fei-Tsui Reservoir. The resulting optimal cost and benefit of water quality improvement are depicted by the model-derived trade-off curves. The modeling framework developed in the present study could be used as an efficient tool for planning a watershed-wide implementation of BMPs for mitigating stormwater pollution impact on the receiving water bodies.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Use of modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an analytic tool that provides a framework for comparing the health benefits and resource expenditures associated with competing medical and public health interventions, thereby allowing decision makers to identify interventions that yield the greatest amount of health, given their resource constraints. Models are important components of most, if not all, CEAs, and they play a key role in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs, in particular. In this article, we describe the basic types of models used to evaluate cancer screening programs and provide examples of the use of models in CEAs and to guide cancer screening policy. Finally, we offer some suggestions for important concepts to consider when interpreting model results.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗