The Prevalence and Epidemiological Features of Ischaemic Heart Disease in Sri Lanka

Background: There is limited evidence on the prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and its association with risk factors and socioeconomic status (SES) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the relatively high levels of access to healthcare in Sri Lanka, the association of IHD with SES may be different from that observed in other LMICs. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of IHD in Sri Lanka, determine its associated risk factors and its association with SES. Methods: We analysed data from 6,513 adults aged ≥18 years examined in the 2018/19 Sri Lanka Health and Ageing Study. We used the Rose angina questionnaire to classify participants as having angina (Angina+) and used self-report or medical records to identify participants with a history of IHD (History+). The association of Angina+ and History+ with age, ethnicity, sector of residence, education level, household SES wealth quintile, area SES wealth quintile, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, total cholesterol, cholesterol-to-HDL ratio, waist-to-hip ratio and body mass index were analysed in unadjusted and adjusted models. Additional analyses were performed to investigate sensitivity to correction for missing data and to benchmark estimates against evidence from other studies. Conclusions: We estimated prevalence of History+ of 3.9% (95% CI 3.3%-4.4%) and Angina+ of 3.0% (95% CI 2.4%-3.5%) in adults aged 18 years and over. The prevalence of Angina+ was higher in women than men (3.9% vs. 1.9%, p &lt; 0.001) whilst prevalence of History+ was lower (3.8% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.8), which may suggest a higher rate of undiagnosed IHD in women. A history of IHD was strongly associated with age, hypertension and diabetes status even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Though the prevalence of History+ was higher in the most developed area SES tertile and urban areas, History+ was also associated with less education but not household SES, consistent with patterns emerging from other LMICs.</p

Optimizing cardiovascular disease risk screening in a low-resource setting: cost-effectiveness of program modifications in Sri Lanka modelled with nationally representative survey data

Abstract Background While screening for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk can help low-resource health systems deliver low-cost, effective prevention, evidence is needed to adapt international screening guidelines for maximal impact in local settings. We aimed to establish how the cost-effectiveness of CVD risk screening in Sri Lanka varies with who is screened, how risk is assessed, and what thresholds are used for prescription of medicines. Methods We used data for people aged 35 years and over from a 2018/19 nationally representative survey in Sri Lanka. We modelled the costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for 128 screening program scenarios distinguished by a) age group screened, b) risk tool used, c) definition of high CVD risk, d) blood pressure threshold for treatment of high-risks, and e) prescription of statins to all diabetics. We used the current program as the base case. We used a Markov model of a one-year screening program with a lifetime horizon and a public health system perspective. Results Scenarios that included the WHO-2019 office-based risk tool dominated most others. Switching to this tool and raising the age threshold for screening from 35 to 40 years gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $113/QALY. Lowering the CVD high-risk threshold from 20 to 10$1,159/QALY. The findings were sensitive to allowing for disutility of daily medication. Conclusions In Sri Lanka, CVD risk screening scenarios that used the WHO-2019 office-based risk tool, screened people above the age of 40, and lowered risk and blood pressure thresholds would likely be cost-effective, generating an additional QALY at less than half a GDP per capita

Quality of outpatient primary care in public and private sectors in Sri Lanka : how well do patient perceptions match reality and what are the implications?

Objective: To compare the quality of clinical care and patient satisfaction in public and private outpatient primary care services in Sri Lanka. Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional comparison was done by direct observation of patient encounters and exit interviews of outpatients in 10 public hospital general outpatient clinics and 66 private practitioner clinics in three districts of Sri Lanka. A total of 1027 public sector patients and 944 private sector patients were surveyed. Data were collected for 39 quality indicators covering diarrhoea, cough, hypertension, diabetes, asthma, upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) and five other conditions, along with prescribing indicators. The exit interviews collected data for 10 patient satisfaction indicators. Results: The public sector performed better for some conditions (diarrhoea, cough and asthma) and the private sector performed better for others (hypertension, diabetes, URTI and tonsillitis). Overall quality was similar between the sectors in the domains of history taking, examination and investigations and management, but the private sector performed much better on patient education (57 vs 12%). Overall patient satisfaction was high in both sectors (98%), although the private sector performed much better in interpersonal satisfaction (94 vs 84%) and system-related indicators (95 vs 84%). Comparisons with studies from other countries suggest that both sectors perform considerably better than India, and similarly in many indicators to high-income countries. Conclusions: Quality of outpatient primary care in Sri Lanka is generally high for a lower-middle income developing country. The public and private sectors perform similarly, except that private sector patients have longer consultations, are more likely to receive education and advice, and obtain better interpersonal satisfaction. The public system, with its limited funding, is able to deliver care in diagnosis and management that is similar to the private sector, while private sector patients, who spend more on their healthcare receive better quality care in non-clinical areas

Taking Action to Address the Social and Environmental Determinants of Health Inequity in Asia Pacific

The World Health Organization Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) shone a global spotlight on the inequities in health that exist within and between countries at the start of the 21st century. It put health equity, social justice and empowerment of individuals, communities and countries at the heart of its concern. Between 2005 and 2008 the CSDH brought together evidence and made recommendations on what could be done to achieve better and more fairly distributed health worldwide through action specifically in the social determinants (1).This report was commisioned by HealthGAE

The iHealth-T2D study:a cluster randomised trial for the prevention of type 2 diabetes amongst South Asians with central obesity and prediabetes: a statistical analysis plan

Abstract Background: South Asians are at high risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Lifestyle modification is effective at preventing T2D amongst South Asians, but the approaches to screening and intervention are limited by high costs, poor scalability and thus low impact on T2D burden. An intensive family-based lifestyle modification programme for the prevention of T2D was developed. The aim of the iHealth-T2D trial is to compare the effectiveness of this programme with usual care. Methods: The iHealth-T2D trial is designed as a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted at 120 sites across India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the UK. A total of 3682 South Asian men and women with age between 40 and 70 years without T2D but at elevated risk for T2D [defined by central obesity (waist circumference ≥ 95 cm in Sri Lanka or ≥ 100 cm in India, Pakistan and the UK) and/or prediabetes (HbA1c ≥ 6.0%)] were included in the trial. Here, we describe in detail the statistical analysis plan (SAP), which was finalised before outcomes were available to the investigators. The primary outcome will be evaluated after 3 years of follow-up after enrolment to the study and is defined as T2D incidence in the intervention arm compared to usual care. Secondary outcomes are evaluated both after 1 and 3 years of follow-up and include biochemical measurements, anthropometric measurements, behavioural components and treatment compliance. Discussion: The iHealth-T2D trial will provide evidence of whether an intensive family-based lifestyle modification programme for South Asians who are at high risk for T2D is effective in the prevention of T2D. The data from the trial will be analysed according to this pre-specified SAP. Ethics and dissemination: The trial was approved by the international review board of each participating study site. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and in conference presentations. Trial registration: EudraCT 2016–001,350-18. Registered on 14 April 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02949739. Registered on 31 October 2016

Effects of a lifestyle intervention programme after 1 year of follow-up among South Asians at high risk of type 2 diabetes:a cluster randomised controlled trial

Abstract Introduction: South Asians are at high risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We assessed whether intensive family-based lifestyle intervention leads to significant weight loss, improved glycaemia and blood pressure in adults at elevated risk for T2D. Methods: This cluster randomised controlled trial (iHealth-T2D) was conducted at 120 locations across India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the UK. We included 3684 South Asian men and women, aged 40–70 years, without T2D but with raised haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and/or waist circumference. Participants were randomly allocated either to the family-based lifestyle intervention or control group by location clusters. Participants in the intervention received 9 visits and 13 telephone contacts by community health workers over 1-year period, and the control group received usual care. Reductions in weight (aim &gt;7% reduction), waist circumference (aim ≥5 cm reduction), blood pressure and HbA1C at 12 months of follow-up were assessed. Our linear mixed-effects regression analysis was based on intention-to-treat principle and adjusted for age, sex and baseline values. Results: There were 1846 participants in the control and 1838 in the intervention group. Between baseline and 12 months, mean weight of participants in the intervention group reduced by 1.8 kg compared with 0.4 kg in the control group (adjusted mean difference −1.10 kg (95% CI −1.70 to −1.06), p&lt;0.001). The adjusted mean difference for waist circumference was −1.9 cm (95% CI −2.5; to 1.3), p&lt;0.001). No overall difference was observed for blood pressure or HbA1c. People who attended multiple intervention sessions had a dose-dependent effect on waist circumference, blood pressure and HbA1c, but not on weight. Conclusion: An intensive family-based lifestyle intervention adopting low-resource strategies led to effective reduction in weight and waist circumference at 12 months, which has potential long-term benefits for preventing T2D. A higher number of attended sessions increased the effect on waist circumference, blood pressure and HbA1c. Trial registration number: EudraCT: 2016-001350-18; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02949739