Background Despite declines in deaths from rheumatic heart disease (RHD) in Africa over the past 30 years, it remains a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality on the continent. We present an investment case for interventions to prevent and manage RHD in the African Union (AU).Methods We created a cohort state-transition model to estimate key outcomes in the disease process, including cases of pharyngitis from group A streptococcus, episodes of acute rheumatic fever (ARF), cases of RHD, heart failure, and deaths. With this model, we estimated the impact of scaling up interventions using estimates of effect sizes from published studies. We estimated the cost to scale up coverage of interventions and summarised the benefits by monetising health gains estimated in the model using a full income approach. Costs and benefits were compared using the benefit-cost ratio and the net benefits with discounted costs and benefits.Findings Operationally achievable levels of scale-up of interventions along the disease spectrum, including primary prevention, secondary prevention, platforms for management of heart failure, and heart valve surgery could avert 74 000 (UI 50 000-104 000) deaths from RHD and ARF from 2021 to 2030 in the AU, reaching a 30•7% (21•6-39•0) reduction in the age-standardised death rate from RHD in 2030, compared with no increase in coverage of interventions. The estimated benefit-cost ratio for plausible scale-up of secondary prevention and secondary and tertiary care interventions was 4•7 (2•9-6•3) with a net benefit of $2•8 billion (1•6-3•9; 2019 US$) through 2030. The estimated benefit-cost ratio for primary prevention scale-up was low to 2030 (0•2, <0•1-0•4), increasing with delayed benefits accrued to 2090. The benefit-cost dynamics of primary prevention were sensitive to the costs of different delivery approaches, uncertain epidemiological parameters regarding group A streptococcal pharyngitis and ARF, assumptions about long-term demographic and economic trends, and discounting.Interpretation Increased coverage of interventions to control and manage RHD could accelerate progress towards eradication in AU member states. Gaps in local epidemiological data and particular components of the disease process create uncertainty around the level of benefits. In the short term, costs of secondary prevention and secondary and tertiary care for RHD are lower than for primary prevention, and benefits accrue earlier.
Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular disease in the elderly and is associated with poor outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Herein, we describe the gender-related differences in baseline characteristics and pathophysiologic response to severe AS, imaging considerations unique to females, and short- and long-term outcomes after TAVR. Women undergoing TAVR are older and frailer, have less cardiovascular comorbidities, smaller femoral artery size, better left ventricular systolic function, hypertrophied and small left ventricles leading to a higher incidence of paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS, and a greater prevalence of porcelain aorta, smaller aortic annulus size, and lower coronary ostia heights. Imaging and histopathological data also suggests a sex-related myocardial response to pressure overload from AS. Women experience more vascular complications and blood transfusion requirements, serious procedural complications, and a greater incidence of stroke, but have better long-term outcomes than men. Patient-prosthesis mismatch, which is a concern in patients with a small aortic annulus size undergoing SAVR, has not been problematic with TAVR. The aforementioned findings suggest that TAVR may be preferable for women with severe AS. Further studies are warranted to directly compare TAVR with SAVR in women.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.