WHF:<\/strong> Can you describe for us some key steps in approach or methodology to get the data that would allow for analyzing the costs and benefits then?<\/p>\nWe had at least ten meetings to map what we are costing and we created very detailed lists where I gave major input based on my experience living and working in Africa. We took into consideration the cost of care provision, visiting primary healthcare clinic on a monthly basis and we arrived at various models. Initially the primary prevention was even more costly as it is in the publication\u2014 and actually, after downsizing the cost by virtually lowering the salaries of the healthcare workers and assuming they can see a particular large number of kids per day for the penicillin injections that we came to the currently published numbers. So, the primary prevention cost is definitely not inflated but perhaps more the contrary. Both the finding and the analysis are actually quite well shown on Table 2 of the Stud.<\/p>\n
Primary prophylaxis, that is, health center-based pharyngitis treatment the cost includes paying for the nurse at the clinic and for penicillin.<\/p>\n
For the secondary and tertiary costs we calculated the expenses for the relatively small group of patients that developed from throat infection to Rheumatic Fever, and whose valves were severely affected and who developed the disease.<\/p>\n
We calculated the costs to diagnose them, manage the heart disease with medication and those who need surgery, get the surgery.<\/p>\n
Doing this, we could show the RHD deaths that can be avoided per thousand. You can see that with primary prophylaxis the figure is 0.8, so less than one per thousand deaths versus 59.5, which is sixty deaths per thousand if you do the integrated secondary and tertiary care.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
WHF: <\/strong>Can you tell us more about the different options in cost-benefit terms?<\/p>\nKS:<\/strong> If you do the integrated tertiary care, there is a big difference in reduction of deaths. And then if you look at the full income benefit, so the benefit of the money you spend versus the money you save per death, there is also a big difference of full income benefit of 0.5 dollars versus 4.5. Then if you look at the cost-benefit ratio, it would be one-tenth if you do the primary prevention versus secondary integrated care.<\/p>\nIdeally, you could consider everything. And there will be some countries who can do everything because they have the financial resources. I that think happened in Tunisia because it’s a relatively wealthy country in Northern Africa with a relatively small population, a relatively well-educated and relatively wealthy population. I think that all intervention projects are ideal for a country like Tunisia who can afford it and has a population with wide access. They have primary care clinics where everything can be done, including surgery.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
WHF:\u00a0 <\/strong>So, tell us what struck you as you considered these different care interventions?<\/p>\nKS:<\/strong> I thought \u2018Why is there such a big difference in primary prevention versus secondary and tertiary?\u2019 Because intuitively, prevention, as is the case for many other diseases, is cheaper than addressing eventual complications. With high blood pressure and diabetes, well, early treatment is cheaper than treating strokes, kidney disease and heart attacks. But if you have high blood pressure or diabetes and you don’t treat it at all, 10 years later, at least one-third of the patients develop serious disease. If you take a 40-year old with very high blood pressure and you don’t act, one-third of them will either have a heart attack or develop kidney disease. If you have a child with Rheumatic Fever, one in a thousand develop heart disease.<\/p>\nWith tonsillitis, less than one in thousand gets Rheumatic Fever and of those who do, less than a hundred get significant heart disease needing medication or surgery. The probability of having a trigger like streptococcal infection leading to a significant heart problem is very different than with diabetes and hypertension leading to the same. This underscores the benefit of primary prophylaxis and explains why primary, secondary and tertiary care are so different in Rheumatic Heart Disease.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
WHF: <\/strong>What about regional factors and local conditions and applying these interventions including in your own country of South Africa?<\/p>\nKS: <\/strong>Another big factor which comes into play is disease prevalence. So in a country like Mozambique where there is still a lot of Rheumatic Fever because of overcrowding and poverty, and fewer surgeons, it is still advisable to do primary prophylactic care or prevention.<\/p>\nIn a country where the disease is becoming relatively rare because of increased affluence and less overcrowding, it might be less cost-effective to do the primary preventive care and better to focus instead on treating the cases. I can say for South Africa, because I work here, I have not seen a child or an adolescent with Rheumatic Fever in the past 10 years. It’s rare here because South Africa is a middle-income country. We have kids with throat infections who get antibiotics. South Africa has good surgeons and good cardiologists. For South Africa, or most of the country, the most likely model then is integrated secondary and tertiary care but you can also do it by province. The Eastern Cape is a poor province so there, one can do interventions at all levels but for the rest of the country, I would advise integrated secondary and tertiary care only. It is important to understand the costs of interventions and the respective healthcare systems in order to apply what is affordable, but also to factor in disease frequency in looking at the best model for your country. And I think for that, the study is highly important along with its analysis.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
WHF: <\/strong>What are your biggest hopes and ideal next steps now that this work has come to fruition and is being published?<\/p>\nKS:<\/strong> I hope leaders in healthcare will look at Table 2 of the study and use the data wisely for their own country to avoid patients getting Rheumatic Heart Disease and to ensure the best possible care for those who do. Data gives us the information we need and equips us to use it appropriately.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Interview on \u201cThe Investment Case for the Prevention and Management of Rheumatic Heart Disease in the African Union 2021-2030: a Modelling Study\u201d with co-author Professor Karen Sliwa, Director of the Hatter Institute for Cardiovascular Research in Africa at the University of Cape Town and Past President of the World Heart Federation (WHF). \u00a0 WHF: What […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":3095,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"event":[],"project-campaign":[],"topic":[171],"class_list":["post-7865","news","type-news","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Prevention and Management of RHD in the African Union: Interview with Prof Karen Sliwa - World Heart Federation<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n\t \n