| Literature DB >> 27216490 |
Nhung Nghiem1, Tony Blakely1, Linda J Cobiac2, Christine L Cleghorn1, Nick Wilson3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A "diet high in sodium" is the second most important dietary risk factor for health loss identified in the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. We therefore aimed to model health gains and costs (savings) of salt reduction interventions related to salt substitution and maximum levels in bread, including by ethnicity and age. We also ranked these four interventions compared to eight other modelled interventions.Entities:
Keywords: Bread; Cardiovascular disease; Dietary salt; Modelling; Salt substitution; Sodium
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27216490 PMCID: PMC4877955 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3102-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Health economic modelling studies of population-level dietary salt reduction interventions in high-income countries which use the health metric of QALYs or DALYs and have cost implications (ordered by publication datea)
| Setting and reference | Interventions | Main results | Comment e.g., on key features and potential limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 European countriesb, Murray et al 2003 [ | (i) Cooperation between government and the food industry for a stepwise decrease in salt content of processed foods and for labelling; (ii) Legislation to decrease sodium content in processed foods and appropriate labelling (a combined package); (iii) Health education focusing on body mass index and cholesterol concentrations; (iv) A combined package of (ii) and (iii). | 0.7-1.3 million DALYs averted per year (in European countries group). Very cost-effective at US$14-37 per DALY averted (DR = 3 %). Legislation reported to be more cost-effective than voluntary agreements. | This study did not consider cost-savings from preventing CVD. It was reliant on the relatively simplistic WHO Choice methodology for costing intervention programmes. |
| US, Palar & Sturm 2009 [ | Reducing average population sodium intake to 1200-2300 mg/day [d]. | Large annual QALY gains (312,000) and large annual savings in health costs (US$18 billion). | QALYs were also valued as part of a societal perspective. No specific intervention or intervention costs. |
| US, Smith-Spangler et al 2010 [ | (i) Collaboration with industry to reduce sodium by 9.5 %, and (ii) a sodium tax to reduce sodium by 6 %. | Both interventions achieved large QALY gains (2.1 million and 1.3 million respectively over the cohort’s lifetime). Cost-savings at $US32.1 and 22.4 billion respectively. | A high quality study but the cost of implementing the tax intervention was not considered. |
| US, Bibbins-Domingo et al 2010 [ | A regulatory intervention to reduce the level of salt intake by 3 g/d. | Large annual QALY gains (194,000 to 392,000) and annual cost-savings at $US10 to 24 billion. Salt reduction was more cost-effective than treating hypertension with medications. The anticipated relative benefits in blacks were greater than those for non-blacks across all age and sex groups. | A high quality study but no specific intervention or intervention costs detailed. This is only one of two studies in this table to consider ethnic inequalities. |
| Australia, Cobiac et al 2010 [ | Voluntary and mandatory reduction of salt content in breads, margarine, and cereals; dietary advice; and labelling programme. | Both salt content interventions were cost-saving (e.g., $A3.3 billion for the mandatory one over the cohorts lifetime) but health gain was much greater for the mandatory vs voluntary intervention (e.g., 110,000 vs 5300 lifetime DALYs averted). The labelling programme was cost-effective but not the dietary advice. | Included a useful comparison between a voluntary and mandatory intervention. Used WHO Choice methods rather than more country-specific intervention costing data. |
| England & Wales, Barton et al 2011 [ | Legislative means (unspecified) to reduce salt intake by 3 g/d | Any salt-reduction intervention costing up to £40 million a year was estimated to be cost-saving. For a 3 g/d reduction over 10 years the total QALY gain was 131,000. | No specific intervention was modelled. See also comments in a review [ |
| Finland, Martikainen et al 2011 [ | A population-wide 1 g/d salt reduction (by unspecified means). | Large QALY gains (26,100 by the year 2030). Cost-savings were 150–225 million Euros by 2030 (but when combined with the saturated fat reduction intervention). | Also considered reductions in productivity losses. No specific intervention was modelled. See also comments in a review [ |
| Australia, Cobiac et al 2012 [ | Mandatory reduction of salt content in breads, margarine, and cereals; and Community Heart Health Programme (CHHP). | Large number of DALYs averted per year (80,000) for the mandatory intervention (vs 3000 in the CHHP) and cost-saving. (See also a similar study listed above by these authors). | This study allowed for a comparison of the mandatory salt reduction with various CVD treatment interventions (the former being more cost-effective). |
| England, Dodhia et al 2012 [ | Included: (i) reductions of salt leading to 2 mmHg and (ii) 5 mmHg reductions in blood pressure; (iii) reduced intake down to 6 g/d via assumed food industry agreement; (iv) advice for DASH-sodium diets. | Large number of DALYs averted for (i) to (iv) in the 200,000 to 900,000 range (DR = 3.5 %). Salt reduction in the population was always reported to be cost-saving except for dietary advice in some age-groups (but here it was still cost-effective). The maximum saving for an intervention was £1.9 billion (over 10y). | High quality study which allowed comparisons with CVD treatment interventions. |
| New Zealand, Nghiem et al 2015 [ | Eight interventions (mix of mandatory and voluntary interventions – see Table | All interventions (except dietary counselling) were cost-saving. The largest gain was from a “sinking lid” intervention (211,000 QALYs over the cohort’s lifetime; $US0.7 billion in savings). The interventions were estimated to produce relatively greater health gain for indigenous people (Māori). | The study had some limitations including around price elasticity data (for the salt tax) and the hypothetical nature of some interventions (e.g., sinking lid). See the |
aThe literature search period in PubMed was from undated to the end of July 2015. The search terms were “sodium or salt” and “QALYs or DALYs”. Of the identified studies, some were screened out since they lacked any data on cost implications or were not for high-income countries
bCountries covered in the European “A” region: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK
Main input parameters to the modelling: selected baseline and epidemiological parameters
| Variable | Sources and key details | Key values and uncertainty |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline variables in 2011 | ||
| Sodium intake | Source: New Zealand (NZ) nutrition survey data [ | 4013 mg/d for men and 3115 mg/d for women (nil uncertainty; rather uncertainty around the intervention associated reduction was considered – see below) |
| Incidence, prevalence and case-fatality data for CHD and stroke | Calculated using linked Health Tracker data, with coherency checks using DisMod II and smoothing with regression as required. Future annual percentage change (APC) in incidence and CFR were both set at -2.0 % each as per the NZBDS. | See online reports for details [ |
| Morbidity (disability weights [DW]) | From GBD2010 [ | DW for CHD = 0.081 (average) DW for stroke = 0.226 (average). Uncertainty: e.g., for non-Māori males, 95%CI: 0.05–0.11 for CHD and 0.11–0.23 for stroke. (For more details uncertainty see Nghiem et al [ |
| Baseline health system costs for CHD and stroke states, and non-diseased states | Calculated from Health Tracker data by sex and age in 2011 for people: (a) without either CHD or stroke; (b) with CHD only, and excess to (a); (c) with stroke only, and excess to (a). (See an online report [ | Examples for 60 year old women (gamma distribution with SD = 10 % of mean): (a) NZ$2381; (b) NZ$16,258 for the first year, NZ$5,395 for second and subsequent years; (c) NZ$20,553 and NZ$5991 for stroke. |
| Epidemiological associations | ||
| Change in systolic blood pressure (sBP) (in mm Hg) for each 100 mmol/d change in sodium intake | Derived from the regressions models developed by Law et al [ | For men and women: |
| Age-group; sBP (mm Hg) change | ||
| 30–39: 5.5 | ||
| 40–49: 6.6 | ||
| 50–59: 9.2 | ||
| 60–69: 10.3 | ||
| Relationship between blood pressure and CVD risks | We used the results of a meta-analysis of 61 prospective studies by Lewington et al [ | The hazard ratio for a 20 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP ranged from 0.49 to 0.67 for CHD and from 0.38 to 0.67 for stroke (depending on age). For uncertainty: SD = +/- 10 % of the point estimate for each age group. |
Input parameters relating to the four new intervention effects
| Intervention | Sources and extra details | Key values and uncertainty (average adult)a |
|---|---|---|
| Salt substitution at 59 %: In all processed food the NaCl is legally required to be largely substituted with other salts at the level of 59 % (mix of potassium and magnesium salts). | This 59 % substitution level was that used in a randomised trial in the Netherlands [ | Reduction of 51.5 % in daily sodium intake from the reduced intake of processed foods and table salt (or 1824 mg [79.3 mmol] sodium per day for an average adult). For uncertainty we used +/- 10 % of the point estimate (normal distribution). |
| Salt substitution at 25 %: As per the intervention above but at a lower level. | This substitution level is as per the majority of the salt substitution studies in the meta-analysis by Peng et al [ | Reduction of 21.8 % in daily sodium intake from the reduced intake of processed foods and table salt (or 773 mg [33.6 mmol] sodium per day for an average adult). For uncertainty we used +/- 10 % of the point estimate (normal distribution). |
| Tight limits on sodium in bread: A legal requirement for commercial bread to have a sodium level that is ≤280 mg/100 g. | This is the level used in Finnish law for the labelling of low salt bread (i.e., 0.7 % salt) [ | Reduction of 7.9 % (or 280 mg [12.2 mmol] sodium per day for an average adult). For uncertainty we used +/- 10 % of the point estimate (normal distribution). |
| Modest limits on sodium in bread: As per the intervention above but for a less stringent limit of ≤400 mg/100 g (i.e., as per a target value for Australia [ | As per the row above except that we assumed that to ensure ready compliance with the law, the manufacturers aimed for the 390 mg per 100 g level. So this would shift the dietary contribution of sodium from bread from 20.6 to 18.3 % (390/439 × 20.6), i.e., a 2.3 % absolute reduction. That is a reduction of 81.5 mg/day (out of the baseline consumption of 3544 mg/day). We assumed full implementation in the baseline year. | Reduction of 2.3 % (or 81.5 mg [3.5 mmol] sodium per day for an average adult). For uncertainty we used +/- 10 % of the point estimate (normal distribution). |
aValues given for the average adult. In the modelling we adjusted these values for men and women by ratios of 4013/3544 and 3115/3544 respectively, given the variation in sodium intakes (in mg) according to national nutrition survey data [60]
Input parameters relating to the interventions costs
| Intervention | Intervention costs |
|---|---|
| Salt substitution at 59 % | The cost was that of a new law for NZ, which was based on the average cost of new act [ |
| It was considered out-of-scope given our health system perspective to consider reformulation costs and costs associated with package labelling changes. Our approach is also in accord with past NZ laws relating to food labelling, alcohol labelling and tobacco labelling in that manufacturers are not compensated for the costs imposed by the new law. For example, the NZ law requiring pictorial health warnings on tobacco packaging did not compensate industry for printing costs or lost sales. Furthermore, we assumed no additional costs from the existing routine evaluation efforts by the NZ Government (nutrition surveys and food surveys) and negligible enforcement and legal costs associated with non-compliance (owing to the relatively low levels of corruption in the NZ setting and the high compliance with laws e.g., the law banning smoking in bars and restaurants [ | |
| Salt substitution at 25 % | As per the row above, i.e., the cost of a new law. |
| Tight limits on sodium in bread (280 mg/100 g) | The cost is just that of the cost of a new law for NZ (see above). As per the arguments above, there was no consideration of reformulation costs and package labelling costs. The technology exists to manufacture lower sodium bread as per examples already present on the NZ market e.g., 186 mg/100 g for one multigrain bread [ |
| Modest limits on sodium in bread (400 mg/100 g) | As per the row above. |
Population level results for the costs and health gain of the four sodium reduction interventions (95 % uncertainty intervals in parentheses)a and compared with previous interventions [5] using the same model (considered in the Discussion)
| Modelled intervention | Health gain (QALYs for remainder of the cohort’s life) | Health system cost (NZ$; millions) for remainder of the cohort’s life | Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Do nothing” comparatorb | 33,200,000 (33,000,000 to 33,500,000) | 162,000 (146,000 to 180,000) | - |
| 1) Salt substitution at the 59 % level (processed food) | 294,000 (238,000 to 359,000) | −1500 (−1980 to − 1090) | Dominant |
| 2) “Sinking lid” for salt supply to the marketc | 211,000 (170,000 to 255,000) | −1110 (−1460 to − 830) | Dominant |
| 3) “Salt tax”c | 195,000 (159,000 to 237,000) | −1000 (−1320 to − 740) | Dominant |
| 4) Salt substitution at 25 % | 121,000 (97,300 to 147,000) | −620 (−820 to − 450) | Dominant |
| 5) Mandatory 25 % reduction of sodium in all processed foods (“Mandatory-All”c) | 110,000 (87,500 to 135,000) | −600 (−800 to − 440) | Dominant |
| 6) UK Package (media campaign and voluntary action by industry)c | 85,100 (69,600 to 102,000) | −440 (−570 to − 320) | Dominant |
| 7) Mandatory 25 % reduction of sodium in bread, processed meats and sauces (“Mandatory-3G” c) | 61,700 (49,700 to 74,900) | −340 (−440 to − 240) | Dominant |
| 8) Tight limits on sodium in bread (280 mg/100 g) | 43,500 (34,700 to 52,800) | −220 (−290 to − 160) | Dominant |
| 9) UK style “Mass Media Campaign”c | 25,200 (14,200 to 36,700) | −120 (−200 to − 62) | Dominant |
| 10) Modest limits on sodium in bread (400 mg/100 g) | 15,600 (12,600 to 18,900) | −83 (−110 to − 61) | Dominant |
| 11) Endorsement Label Programmec(current practice in NZ) | 7900 (5500 to 10,400) | −34 (−52 to − 19) | Dominant |
| 12) Dietary counselling by dietitiansc(current practice in NZ) | 200 (100 to 330) | 6.90 (4.20 to 10.2) | NZ$36,900 per QALY gained |
aBased on 2000 Monte Carlo simulations for the NZ adult population aged 35+ years and alive in 2011 modelled out to death or age 100. Discount rate: 3 %. Numbers are rounded to two or three meaningful digits
bNo intervention costs are included in this “do nothing comparator” (i.e., the costs of the currently existing programmes of “dietary counselling by dietitians” and the “Endorsement Label Programme”[5] are removed)
cFor further details see this previous work [5] but in summary: Sinking Lid the amount of food-grade salt released onto the NZ market is reduced annually to the point where the recommended level of sodium intake is achieved (2300 mg/d), Salt Tax an excise tax is applied and increased up to the point where the recommended level of sodium intake is achieved (2300 mg/d), Mandatory-All reduction of sodium in all processed foods by 25 % relative to existing levels, UK Package the mix of media campaign, voluntary food reformulation and food labelling changes used in the UK which resulted in a 15 % reduction in 24-h urinary sodium over 7 years in the adult population, Mandatory-3G mandatory reduction of sodium in the manufacture of breads, processed meats and sauces (by 25 % in each group), UK Mass Media Campaign just the mass media campaign part of the UK Package (detailed above), Endorsement Label Programme a programme involving an endorsement label run by the Heart Foundation (part of current practice in NZ), Counselling dietary counselling by dietitians to reduce sodium intake (part of current practice in NZ)
Net costs and QALYs incremental to “do nothing” by sociodemographic group for the four sodium reduction interventions (expressed per adult in 2011; discounted 3 %)
| Intervention/population group | Incremental (to “do nothing”) cost per adult in NZ$ | QALYs gained per adult |
|---|---|---|
| Salt substitution at 59 % | ||
| Age < 65 years (starting in 2011) | −835 | 0.146 |
| Age 65+ years (starting in 2011) | −112 | 0.073 |
| Women | −550 | 0.115 |
| Men | −760 | 0.141 |
| Māori | −533 | 0.163 |
| Non-Māori | −658 | 0.123 |
| Salt substitution at 25 % | ||
| Age < 65 years (starting in 2011) | −348 | 0.060 |
| Age 65+ years (starting in 2011) | −46 | 0.030 |
| Women | −230 | 0.048 |
| Men | −316 | 0.058 |
| Māori | −224 | 0.067 |
| Non-Māori | −275 | 0.051 |
| Tight limits on sodium in bread (280 mg/100 g) | ||
| Age < 65 years (starting in 2011) | −125 | 0.022 |
| Age 65+ years (starting in 2011) | −16 | 0.011 |
| Women | −82 | 0.017 |
| Men | −113 | 0.021 |
| Māori | −80 | 0.024 |
| Non-Māori | −98 | 0.018 |
| Modest limits on sodium in bread (400 mg/100 g) | ||
| Age < 65 years (starting in 2011) | −45 | 0.0072 |
| Age 65+ years (starting in 2011) | −10 | 0.0054 |
| Women | −30 | 0.0060 |
| Men | −43 | 0.0075 |
| Māori | −31 | 0.0087 |
| Non-Māori | −37 | 0.0066 |
Age ranges in which the health gain occurs for the salt substitution intervention (at the 59 % level in processed fooda, discount rate of 3 %)
| Age when the QALYs are gained (i.e., not age in 2011) | In first 10 year period (i.e., 2011 to 2020) | In second 10 year period (i.e., 2021 to 2030) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QALYs gained | % of QALYs among 45+ year olds | % of QALYs among 55+ year olds | QALYs gained | % of QALYs among 45+ year olds | % of QALYs among 55+ year olds | |
| 35–44 | 51 | - | ||||
| 45–54 | 716 | 5.4 % | 1,207 | 2.0 % | ||
| 55–64 | 2,220 | 16.9 % | 17.8 % | 8,016 | 13.2 % | 13.5 % |
| 65–69b | 1,928 | 14.6 % | 15.5 % | 8,978 | 14.8 % | 15.1 % |
| 70–74 | 1,673 | 12.7 % | 13.4 % | 7,259 | 12.0 % | 12.2 % |
| 75–84 | 3,787 | 28.7 % | 30.4 % | 20,322 | 33.5 % | 34.2 % |
| 85–94 | 2,316 | 17.6 % | 18.6 % | 12,180 | 20.1 % | 20.5 % |
| 95+ | 537 | 4.1 % | 4.3 % | 2,695 | 4.4 % | 4.5 % |
| Sum 45+ | 13,177 | 100 % | 60,658 | 100 % | ||
| Sum 55+ | 12,461 | 100 % | 59,451 | 100 % | ||
aSee the Additional file 1 for the other three interventions
bThe age at which welfare payments for all older people begin is 65 years in this New Zealand setting
Fig. 1Ages at which the health gain occurs for the salt substitution (59 % level) intervention (discount rate of 3 %)