| Literature DB >> 29182636 |
Marieke A H Hendriksen1, Johanna M Geleijnse2, Joop M A van Raaij1,2, Francesco P Cappuccio3,4, Linda C Cobiac5, Peter Scarborough6, Wilma J Nusselder7, Abbygail Jaccard8, Hendriek C Boshuizen1,2.
Abstract
We examined whether specific input data and assumptions explain outcome differences in otherwise comparable health impact assessment models. Seven population health models estimating the impact of salt reduction on morbidity and mortality in western populations were compared on four sets of key features, their underlying assumptions and input data. Next, assumptions and input data were varied one by one in a default approach (the DYNAMO-HIA model) to examine how it influences the estimated health impact. Major differences in outcome were related to the size and shape of the dose-response relation between salt and blood pressure and blood pressure and disease. Modifying the effect sizes in the salt to health association resulted in the largest change in health impact estimates (33% lower), whereas other changes had less influence. Differences in health impact assessment model structure and input data may affect the health impact estimate. Therefore, clearly defined assumptions and transparent reporting for different models is crucial. However, the estimated impact of salt reduction was substantial in all of the models used, emphasizing the need for public health actions.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29182636 PMCID: PMC5705127 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Four key features and its underlying assumptions and input data of the modelling approaches of salt reduction.
Comparison of main model features of the models that calculated health impact of salt intake reduction.
| Modelling approaches | CHD policy model [ | Proportional multistate life table [ | RIVM-CDM [ | PRIME Model [ | IMPACT model [ | Global burden of disease [ | DYNAMO-HIA [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 g/d reduction; 2 g/d reduction; 3 g/d reduction | 4 specific interventions | 2 specific interventions and goal intake to 6 g/d | Goal: 6 g/d | 2–20% intake reduction due to specific interventions | Theoretical minimum risk exposure | 30% reduction; Goal: 5 g/d | |
| Gradual reduction in sensitivity analyses | No | No | No | 1 year after baseline | No | No | |
| Population level & population shift | Population level & population shift | Individual level and individual shift | Population level & population shift | Population level | Population level | Population level and shift | |
| 35-80y | >30y | >20y | <75y | Total population | Total population | >18y | |
| Cardiac arrest, MI, CHD and stroke | IHD, stroke | AMI, CVA, CHF | IHD, stroke, stomach cancer | AMI, post AMI, HF, angina, post revascularisation | Stomach cancer, IHD, strokes, several other CVD, chronic kidney disease | IHD, stroke | |
| Australian burden of disease (<2008 and trends to 2020) | Dutch GP and Hospital register (2007) | UK cause-specific mortality (2007) | Hospital statistics, MI audit project, GP-register from UK (1993–2010 and predicted to 2020) | DISMOD-MR(3) (2010) | Dutch GP registry (2003) | ||
| Indirect | Indirect | Indirect | Indirect | Indirect | Indirect (SBP-CVD) and direct (stomach cancer) | Indirect | |
| Dynamic | Dynamic | Dynamic | Static | Static | Static | Dynamic | |
| Categorical | Continuous | Continuous (salt); Categorical (SBP) | Continuous | Continuous | Continuous | Categorical (salt) and continuous (SBP) | |
| Yes, multiplicative | Not used (but optional) | Not used (but optional) | Yes, multiplicative | No | No | No | |
| He & MacGregor, 2004 [ | Law et al, 1991 [ | He & MacGregor, 2004 [ | He & MacGregor, 2008 [ | He & MacGregor, 2004 [ | Own meta-analysis based on He and MacGregor 2008 and Graudal et al, 2011 [ | He & MacGregor, 2004 [ | |
| Linear | Exponential | Exponential | Linear | Linear | Linear | Exponential | |
| By hypertension; >65 years is hypertension | Depends on SBP level | Depends on SBP level | In normotensives only, age-dependent from DASH trial | By hypertension | By age | Depends on SBP level | |
| Medication is treated similar as hypertension | Ignored | Ignored | Ignored | Ignored | Ignored | Ignored | |
| Unchanged | Unchanged | Unchanged | N/A | N/A | N/A | Unchanged | |
| Framingham risk scores [ | Prospective Studies Collaboration [ | Prospective Studies Collaboration and own meta-analysis (CHF) [ | Prospective Studies Collaboration [ | INTERHEART, [ | Prospective Studies Collaboration [ | Prospective Studies Collaboration [ | |
| No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | |
| No (age effect not significant) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Ignored | The lag option is based on WHO assumption of full reversal of stroke risk after 3 years, and two-thirds reversal of heart disease risk after 3 years, with the remaining heart disease risk reversed over seven subsequent years. | Ignored | Ignored | Ignored | Ignored | Ignored | |
| Indirect (including direct fatality) | Indirect | Indirect | Direct | Direct | Direct | Indirect | |
| Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | N/A | N/A | Yes | |
| Framingham adjusted for trends in risk factors and calibrated to national cause of death data; specific data sources separating out over categories | Australian burden of disease | Record linkage of Dutch GP registry and hospital register | N/A | Median survival, estimated 2020 mortality | DISMOD-MR | GP registry | |
| Yes | No | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | No | |
| No | No | No | N/A | N/A | N/A | No | |
| Partly | No (independent) | No (independent) | N/A | Yes | One at the time | No (independent) | |
| Incidence, all-cause mortality and QALYs | DALY, lifetime mortality and morbidity | LYG, DALY, incidence and mortality | Cause-specific mortality | LYG, DPP | DALY (YLL, YLD) | Prevalence, mortality and DALYs | |
| 10y | Lifetime | 20y | N/A | 10y | N/A | 20y | |
LYG: life years gained; DPP: deaths prevented or postponed; QALY: quality adjusted life years; DALY: disability adjusted life years; YLD: years lived with disease; YLL: years lived lost
Overview of the assumptions and input data within the DYNAMO-HIA approach (default situation) and its modifications in the alternative simulations.
| Features | Default situation | Alternations compared to default situation |
|---|---|---|
| Population of model | > 18 years | 35–80 years |
| Disease sources | GP registries, 2001 | GP registries and hospital registration from 2010 |
| Risk factor distribution | Categorical for salt intake (per 2 g salt), but continuous blood pressure distribution | Categorical for salt intake (per 2 g salt), and categorical for blood pressure (per 20 mmHg) |
| Changing prevalence of population in SBP categories (RIVM-CDM approach) | ||
| Change of mean blood pressure in SBP categories (CHD policy approach) | ||
| Shape and source of dose-response association | He and MacGregor, 2004; Exponential | Law et al, 1991;Linear |
| Source of dose-response association | Prospective Studies Collaboration, 2002, age-specific | Framingham Risk Estimates, unadjusted for age |
| Attenuation correction | Measured blood pressure adjusted for within-subject variation | Measured blood pressure |
| Age-dependent | Yes | No age-dependency using Framingham risk estimates |
| Other cause | No | Yes |
| Period of simulation | 10 years | Extended to 20 years |
| Extended to 50 years | ||
1Other then stroke and IHD
Effect of eight modifiable assumptions and input data on the health impact estimate of a 3 gram salt reduction using the DYNAMO-HIA model.
| CVA incidence | IHD incidence | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 3 g/d salt intake reduction | Absolute difference | % reduction (% difference with default approach) | Baseline | 3 g/d salt intake reduction | Absolute difference | % reduction (% difference with default approach) | ||
| Default | 292,700 | 261,900 | 30,800 | 10.5 | 483,600 | 445,500 | 38,100 | 7.9 | |
| Population of model | 35–80 y | 253,500 | 225,000 | 28,500 | 11.2 (+6%) | 445,400 | 409,800 | 35,600 | 8.0 (1%) |
| Disease sources | CVD data from 2010 | 275,200 | 246,300 | 28,900 | 10.5 (0%) | 528,000 | 487,000 | 41,000 | 7.8 (-1%) |
| Risk factor distribution | Change in prevalence in categories | 290,800 | 269,100 | 21,700 | 7.2 (-31%) | 482,100 | 456,400 | 25,700 | 5.4 (-32%) |
| Change in mean SBP in categories | 290,800 | 261,300 | 29,500 | 10.1 (-4%) | 482,000 | 444,400 | 37,600 | 7.8 (-1%) | |
| Salt intake–SBP | Linear association, with RR from Law, 1991 | 293,400 | 256,200 | 37,300 | 12.7 (+19%) | 483,700 | 437,400 | 46,300 | 9.6 (+22%) |
| SBP-CVD | RR from Framingham | 292,900 | 270,900 | 22,000 | 7.5 (-33%) | 483,600 | 460,200 | 23,400 | 4.8 (-40%) |
| Attenuation correction | No correction usual SBP | 292,700 | 258,400 | 34,300 | 11.7 (+11%) | 483,600 | 442,600 | 41,000 | 8.5 (+8%) |
| Mortality also depends on SBP directly | Other cause of death mortality depends on salt intake/SBP | 292,700 | 261,400 | 31,300 | 10.7 (+2%) | 483,600 | 444,600 | 39,000 | 8.1 (+3%) |
| Period of simulation | Extended to 20 y | 652,400 | 586,400 | 66,000 | 10.1 (-4%) | 1,066,700 | 986,500 | 80,200 | 7.5 (-5%) |
| Extended to 50 y | 1,889,200 | 1,717,800 | 171,400 | 9.0 (-14%) | 2,808,100 | 2,621,974 | 186,200 | 6.6 (-16%) | |
| Similar to CHD policy model | 252,900 | 233,300 | 16,900 | 7.8 (-26%) | 445,200 | 422,900 | 22,300 | 5.0 (-37%) | |
1 default situation: 10-year period, population aged >18 years and older, correction for RDR. RR salt intake and SBP from He and MacGregor et al 2004 (exponential), RR SBP-CVD Lewington et al, 2002, measured SBP corrected with regression dilution ratio
2The pathway from SBP to mortality in this model is both through the “indirect” effect of SBP increasing stroke and IHD incidence, and through a direct effect on mortality from other causes
Fig 2Gain in life expectancy for men and women aged 60 between 3 gram salt reduction and current salt intake for the various simulations.