Dynamic population health modeling for quantitative health impact assessment : Methodological foundation and selected applications

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) – the evaluation policies, projects, or proposals concerning their effects on human health – becomes increasingly common practice at the local, national, and EU

Substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat: A health impact assessment of a fat tax in seven European countries

There is evidence that replacing saturated fat (SFA) with polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) lowers ischemic heart disease (IHD). In order to improve the population’s diet, the World Health Organization has called for the taxation of foods that are high in SFA. We aimed to assess the potential health gains of a European fat tax by applying the SFA intake reduction that has been observed under the Danish fat tax to six other European countries. For each country, we created a fat tax scenario with a decreased SFA intake and a corresponding increase in PUFA. We compared this fat tax scenario to a reference scenario with no change in SFA intake, and to a guideline scenario with a population-wide SFA intake in line with dietary recommendations. We used DYNAMO-HIA to dynamically project the policy-attributable IHD cases of these three scenarios 10 years into the future. A fat tax would reduce prevalent IHD cases by a minimum of 500 and 300 among males and females in Denmark, respectively, up to a maximum of 5,600 and 4,000 among males and females in the UK. Thereby, the prevented IHD cases under a fat tax scenario would correspond to between 11.0% (in females in the Netherlands) and 29.5% (in females in Italy) of the prevented IHD cases under a guideline scenario, which represents the maximum preventable disease burden. Henceforth, our quantification of beneficial health impacts makes the case for the policy debate on fat taxes

Taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes:protocol

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of taxation of sugar‐sweetened beverages (SSBs) on SSB consumption, energy intake, overweight, obesity, and other adverse health outcomes in the general population

Taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes

No abstract available

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening?

__Background:__ Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. __Methods:__ We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. __Discussion:__ This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. _Systematic review registration:_ PROSPERO CRD42016050764and CRD42016050765

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening?

__Background:__ Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. __Methods:__ We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. __Discussion:__ This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. _Systematic review registration:_ PROSPERO CRD42016050764and CRD42016050765

Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients

Aims: New generation dual-source coronary CT (NGCCT) scanners with more than 64 slices were evaluated for patients with (known) or suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD) who are difficult to image: obese, coronary calcium score > 400, arrhythmias, previous revascularization, heart rate > 65 beats per minute, and intolerance of betablocker. A cost-effectiveness analysis of NGCCT compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was performed for these difficult-to-image patients for England and Wales. Methods and results: Five models (diagnostic decision model, four Markov models for CAD progression, stroke, radiation and general population) were integrated to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for both suspected and known CAD populations. The lifetime costs and effects from the National Health Service perspective were estimated for three strategies: (1) patients diagnosed using ICA, (2) using NGCCT, and (3) patients diagnosed using a combination of NGCCT and, if positive, followed by ICA. In the suspected population, the strategy where patients only undergo a NGCCT is a cost-effective option at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. The strategy of using NGCCT in combination with ICA is the most favourable strategy for patients with known CAD. The most influential factors behind these results are the percentage of patients being misclassified (a function of both diagnostic accuracy and the prior likelihood), the complication rates of the procedures, and the cost price of a NGCCT scan. Conclusion: The use of NGCCT might be considered cost-effective in both populations since it is cost-saving compared to ICA and generates similar effects

Evidence of heterogeneity in statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

Aims: To conduct a meta-analysis of statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) risk among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBSs), excluding studies conducted among secondary prevention populations. Methods: Studies were identified by searching PubMed (1994-present) and EMBASE (1994-present). Articles had to meet the following criteria: (1) follow-up >one year; (2) >50% of participants free of clinically diagnosed ASCVD; (3) adult participants ≥30 years old; (4) reported statin-associated T2D effect estimates; and (5) quantified precision using 95% confidence interval. Data were pooled using random-effects model. Results: We identified 23 studies (35% RCTs) of n = 4,012,555 participants. OBS participants were on average younger (mean difference = 6.2 years) and had lower mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C, mean difference = 20.6 mg/dL) and mean fasting plasma glucose (mean difference = 5.2 mg/dL) compared to RCT participants. There was little evidence for publication bias (P > 0.1). However, evidence of heterogeneity was observed overall and among OBSs and RCTs (P Cochran = <0.05). OBS designs, younger baseline mean ages, lower LDL-C concentrations, and high proportions of never or former smokers were significantly associated with increased statin-associated T2D risk. Conclusions: Potentially elevated statin-associated T2D risk in younger populations with lower LDL-C merits further investigation in light of evolving statin guidelines targeting primary prevention populations

Projections of incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and incident type 2 diabetes across evolving statin treatment guidelines and recommendations: A modelling study

Background Experimental and observational research has suggested the potential for increased type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk among populations taking statins for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, few studies have directly compared statin-associated benefits and harms or examined heterogeneity by population subgroups or assumed treatment effect. Thus, we compared ASCVD risk reduction and T2D incidence increases across 3 statin treatment guidelines or recommendations among adults without a history of ASCVD or T2D who were eligible for statin treatment initiation. Methods and findings Simulations were conducted using Markov models that integrated data from contemporary population-based studies of non-Hispanic African American and white adults aged 40–75 years with published meta-analyses. Statin treatment eligibility was determined by predicted 10-year ASCVD risk (5%, 7.5%, or 10%). We calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one ASCVD event and the number needed to harm (NNH) to incur one incident case of T2D. The likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) was calculated as ratio of NNH to NNT. Heterogeneity in statin-associated benefit was examined by sex, age, and statin-associated T2D relative risk (RR) (range: 1.11–1.55). A total of 61,125,042 U.S. adults (58.5% female; 89.4% white; mean age = 54.7 years) composed our primary prevention population, among whom 13–28 million adults were eligible for statin initiation. Overall, the number of ASCVD events prevented was at least twice as large as the number of incident cases of T2D incurred (LHH range: 2.26–2.90). However, the number of T2D cases incurred surpassed the number of ASCVD events prevented when higher statin-associated T2D RRs were assumed (LHH range: 0.72–0.94). In addition, females (LHH range: 1.74–2.40) and adults aged 40–50 years (LHH range: 1.00–1.14) received lower absolute benefits of statin treatment compared with males (LHH range: 2.55–3.00) and adults aged 70–75 years (LHH range: 3.95–3.96). Projected differences in LHH by age and sex became more pronounced as statin-associated T2D RR increased, with a majority of scenarios projecting LHHs < 1 for females and adults aged 40–50 years. This study’s primary limitation was uncertainty in estimates of statin-associated T2D risk, highlighting areas in which additional clinical and public health research is needed