Forecasting the mortality burden of coronary heart disease and stroke in Germany: National trends and regional inequalities.

BackgroundThe decline of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has slowed in many countries, including Germany. We examined the implications of this trend for future coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke mortality in Germany considering persistent mortality inequalities between former East and West Germany.MethodsWe retrieved demographic and mortality data from 1991 to 2019 from the German Federal Statistical Office. Using a Bayesian age-period-cohort framework, we projected CHD and stroke mortality from 2019 to 2035, stratified by sex and German region. We decomposed annual changes in deaths into three components (mortality rates, population age structure and population size) and assessed regional inequalities with age-sex-standardized mortality ratios.ResultsWe confirmed that declines of CVD mortality rates in Germany will likely stagnate. From 2019 to 2035, we projected fewer annual CHD deaths (114,600 to 103,500 [95%-credible interval: 81,700; 134,000]) and an increase in stroke deaths (51,300 to 53,700 [41,400; 72,000]). Decomposing past and projected mortality, we showed that population ageing was and is offset by declining mortality rates. This likely reverses after 2030 leading to increased CVD deaths thereafter. Inequalities between East and West declined substantially since 1991 and are projected to stabilize for CHD but narrow for stroke.ConclusionsCVD deaths in Germany likely keep declining until 2030, but may increase thereafter due to population ageing if the reduction in mortality rates slows further. East-West mortality inequalities for CHD remain stable but may converge for stroke. Underlying risk factor trends need to be monitored and addressed by public health policy

Projected health and economic impacts of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in Germany: A cross-validation modelling study.

BackgroundTaxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) have been implemented globally to reduce the burden of cardiometabolic diseases by disincentivizing consumption through increased prices (e.g., 1 peso/litre tax in Mexico) or incentivizing industry reformulation to reduce SSB sugar content (e.g., tiered structure of the United Kingdom [UK] Soft Drinks Industry Levy [SDIL]). In Germany, where no tax on SSBs is enacted, the health and economic impact of SSB taxation using the experience from internationally implemented tax designs has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to estimate the health and economic impact of national SSBs taxation scenarios in Germany.Methods and findingsIn this modelling study, we evaluated a 20% ad valorem SSB tax with/without taxation of fruit juice (based on implemented SSB taxes and recommendations) and a tiered tax (based on the UK SDIL) in the German adult population aged 30 to 90 years from 2023 to 2043. We developed a microsimulation model (IMPACTNCD Germany) that captures the demographics, risk factor profile and epidemiology of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke in the German population using the best available evidence and national data. For each scenario, we estimated changes in sugar consumption and associated weight change. Resulting cases of cardiometabolic disease prevented/postponed and related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and economic impacts from healthcare (medical costs) and societal (medical, patient time, and productivity costs) perspectives were estimated using national cost and health utility data. Additionally, we assessed structural uncertainty regarding direct, body mass index (BMI)-independent cardiometabolic effects of SSBs and cross-validated results with an independently developed cohort model (PRIMEtime). We found that SSB taxation could reduce sugar intake in the German adult population by 1 g/day (95%-uncertainty interval [0.05, 1.65]) for a 20% ad valorem tax on SSBs leading to reduced consumption through increased prices (pass-through of 82%) and 2.34 g/day (95%-UI [2.32, 2.36]) for a tiered tax on SSBs leading to 30% reduction in SSB sugar content via reformulation. Through reductions in obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (CVD), 106,000 (95%-UI [57,200, 153,200]) QALYs could be gained with a 20% ad valorem tax and 192,300 (95%-UI [130,100, 254,200]) QALYs with a tiered tax. Respectively, €9.6 billion (95%-UI [4.7, 15.3]) and €16.0 billion (95%-UI [8.1, 25.5]) costs could be saved from a societal perspective over 20 years. Impacts of the 20% ad valorem tax were larger when additionally taxing fruit juice (252,400 QALYs gained, 95%-UI [176,700, 325,800]; €11.8 billion costs saved, 95%-UI [€6.7, €17.9]), but impacts of all scenarios were reduced when excluding direct health effects of SSBs. Cross-validation with PRIMEtime showed similar results. Limitations include remaining uncertainties in the economic and epidemiological evidence and a lack of product-level data.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that SSB taxation in Germany could help to reduce the national burden of noncommunicable diseases and save a substantial amount of societal costs. A tiered tax designed to incentivize reformulation of SSBs towards less sugar might have a larger population-level health and economic impact than an ad valorem tax that incentivizes consumer behaviour change only through increased prices

International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review

BACKGROUND: In late 2019, the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) were reported in Wuhan, China, followed by a worldwide spread. Numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, travel restrictions, screening at borders, and quarantine of travellers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of international travel‐related control measures during the COVID‐19 pandemic on infectious disease transmission and screening‐related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID‐19‐specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the WHO Global Database on COVID‐19 Research to 13 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi‐experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel‐related control measures affecting human travel across international borders during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In the original review, we also considered evidence on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). In this version we decided to focus on COVID‐19 evidence only. Primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) cases detected, and (iii) a shift in epidemic development. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts. For studies included in the analysis, one review author extracted data and appraised the study. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of data. To assess the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS‐2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed these GRADE judgements. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we included 62 unique studies in the analysis; 49 were modelling studies and 13 were observational studies. Studies covered a variety of settings and levels of community transmission. Most studies compared travel‐related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of stringency of the measures (including relaxation of restrictions), or a combination of measures. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to the selection of travellers and the reference test, and unclear reporting of certain methodological aspects. Below we outline the results for each intervention category by illustrating the findings from selected outcomes. Travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross‐border travel (31 modelling studies) The studies assessed cases avoided and shift in epidemic development. We found very low‐certainty evidence for a reduction in COVID‐19 cases in the community (13 studies) and cases exported or imported (9 studies). Most studies reported positive effects, with effect sizes varying widely; only a few studies showed no effect. There was very low‐certainty evidence that cross‐border travel controls can slow the spread of COVID‐19. Most studies predicted positive effects, however, results from individual studies varied from a delay of less than one day to a delay of 85 days; very few studies predicted no effect of the measure. Screening at borders (13 modelling studies; 13 observational studies) Screening measures covered symptom/exposure‐based screening or test‐based screening (commonly specifying polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing), or both, before departure or upon or within a few days of arrival. Studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Studies generally predicted or observed some benefit from screening at borders, however these varied widely. For symptom/exposure‐based screening, one modelling study reported that global implementation of screening measures would reduce the number of cases exported per day from another country by 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 95%) (moderate‐certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted delays in epidemic development, although there was wide variation in the results between the studies (very low‐certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted that the proportion of cases detected would range from 1% to 53% (very low‐certainty evidence). Nine observational studies observed the detected proportion to range from 0% to 100% (very low‐certainty evidence), although all but one study observed this proportion to be less than 54%. For test‐based screening, one modelling study provided very low‐certainty evidence for the number of cases avoided. It reported that testing travellers reduced imported or exported cases as well as secondary cases. Five observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected varied from 58% to 90% (very low‐certainty evidence). Quarantine (12 modelling studies) The studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. All studies suggested some benefit of quarantine, however the magnitude of the effect ranged from small to large across the different outcomes (very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence). Three modelling studies predicted that the reduction in the number of cases in the community ranged from 450 to over 64,000 fewer cases (very low‐certainty evidence). The variation in effect was possibly related to the duration of quarantine and compliance. Quarantine and screening at borders (7 modelling studies; 4 observational studies) The studies assessed shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Most studies predicted positive effects for the combined measures with varying magnitudes (very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence). Four observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected for quarantine and screening at borders ranged from 68% to 92% (low‐certainty evidence). The variation may depend on how the measures were combined, including the length of the quarantine period and days when the test was conducted in quarantine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With much of the evidence derived from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross‐border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real‐world' evidence. The certainty of the evidence for most travel‐related control measures and outcomes is very low and the true effects are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Symptom/exposure‐based screening measures at borders on their own are likely not effective; PCR testing at borders as a screening measure likely detects more cases than symptom/exposure‐based screening at borders, although if performed only upon arrival this will likely also miss a meaningful proportion of cases. Quarantine, based on a sufficiently long quarantine period and high compliance is likely to largely avoid further transmission from travellers. Combining quarantine with PCR testing at borders will likely improve effectiveness. Many studies suggest that effects depend on factors, such as levels of community transmission, travel volumes and duration, other public health measures in place, and the exact specification and timing of the measure. Future research should be better reported, employ a range of designs beyond modelling and assess potential benefits and harms of the travel‐related control measures from a societal perspective

The effect of differential privacy on Medicaid participation among racial and ethnic minority groups

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how county and state-level estimates of Medicaid enrollment among the total, non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino/a population are affected by Differential Privacy (DP), where statistical noise is added to the public decennial US census data to protect individual privacy. DATA SOURCES: We obtained population counts from the final version of the US Census Bureau Differential Privacy Demonstration Products from 2010 and combined them with Medicaid enrollment data. STUDY DESIGN: We compared 2010 county and state-level population counts released under the traditional disclosure avoidance techniques and the ones produced with the proposed DP procedures. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find the DP method introduces error up to 10% into counts and proportions of Medicaid participation rate accuracy at the county level, especially for small subpopulations and racial and ethnic minority groups. The effect of DP on Medicaid participation rate accuracy is only small and negligible at the state level. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of DP to the 2020 Census can affect analyses of health disparities, and health care access and use among different sub-populations in the United States. The planned implementation of DP in other census-related surveys such as the American Community Survey can misrepresent Medicaid participation rates for small racial and ethnic minority groups. This can affect Medicaid funding decisions

Costs and cost-effectiveness of HIV early infant diagnosis in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

BackgroundContinuing progress in the global pediatric human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) response depends on timely identification and care of infants with HIV. As countries scale-out improvements to HIV early infant diagnosis (EID), economic evaluations are needed to inform program design and implementation. This scoping review aimed to summarize the available evidence and discuss practical implications of cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of HIV EID.MethodsWe systematically searched bibliographic databases (Embase, MEDLINE and EconLit) and grey literature for economic analyses of HIV EID in low- and middle-income countries published between January 2008 and June 2021. We extracted data on unit costs, cost savings, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios as well as outcomes related to health and the HIV EID care process and summarized results in narrative and tabular formats. We converted unit costs to 2021 USD for easier comparison of costs across studies.ResultsAfter title and abstract screening of 1278 records and full-text review of 99 records, we included 29 studies: 17 cost analyses and 12 model-based cost-effectiveness analyses. Unit costs were 21.46-51.80 USD for point-of-care EID tests and 16.21-42.73 USD for laboratory-based EID tests. All cost-effectiveness analyses stated at least one of the interventions evaluated to be cost-effective. Most studies reported costs of EID testing strategies; however, few studies assessed the same intervention or reported costs in the same way, making comparison of costs across studies challenging. Limited data availability of context-appropriate costs and outcomes of children with HIV as well as structural heterogeneity of cost-effectiveness modelling studies limits generalizability of economic analyses of HIV EID.ConclusionsThe available cost and cost-effectiveness evidence for EID of HIV, while not directly comparable across studies, covers a broad range of interventions and suggests most interventions designed to improve EID are cost-effective or cost-saving. Further studies capturing costs and benefits of EID services as they are delivered in real-world settings are needed