Thursday, June 16, 2011

Medical Ethics and Personal vs. Public Conscience: a Malaysian context


Medical Ethics and Personal vs. Public Conscience: a Malaysian context

By Dr David KL Quek, President, Malaysian Medical Association

 [published recently:
Quek DKL. Medical Ethics and Personal vs. Public Conscience: a Malaysian Context. 
World Med J. 2011; 57(1):2-4.]


Some time ago, New York Times columnist Professor Stanley Fish, (NY Times 12 April 2009)[i] wrote about “Conscience vs. Conscience”, where he discussed the conundrum about how people in general and physicians in particular, under different circumstances should or shouldn’t abide by their own conscience.
The contending issue was that physicians should not refuse treatment or procedures based on their own personal moral or religious grounds. Professor Fish argued that there is such a thing as a collective “public conscience” which should supersede that of one’s personal conscience and value systems, no matter how entrenched these may have been.
During the Bush administration, the culpable clause, called the Provider Refusal Rule, allows health care providers to refuse to participate in procedures they find objectionable for moral or religious reasons. The main bone of contention was of course regarding freedom to choose abortion, pro-choice, or conversely, pro-life.
In Fish’s article, he underscored an earlier statement by Mike Leavitt, Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, who had said that, “Doctors and other health providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience.” The direction of the Bush doctrine was of course to urge the conservative right against unfettered abortion on demand, which continues to divide the American people.
Professor Fish reviewed the etymology of “conscience” as ascribed to English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Here one of the earliest definitions of conscience, referred to those occasions “when two or more men know of one and the same fact . . . which is as much to know it together,” and where, violation of conscience meant that knowing together, men prefer their “secret thoughts” to what has been publicly established.
Fish acknowledged that Hobbes understood that many consider conscience to be the name of the private arbiter of right and wrong. But Hobbes regards this as a corrupted usage invented by those who wished to elevate “their own . . . opinions” to the status of reliable knowledge and try to do so by giving “their opinions . . . that reverenced name of Conscience.”

Hobbes’s main argument is that if one can prefer one’s own internal judgments to the judgments of authorized external bodies (legislatures, courts, professional associations), the result will be the undermining of public order and the substitution of personal whim for general decorums: “. . . because the Law is the public Conscience . . . in such diversity as there is of private Consciences, which are but private opinions, the Commonwealth must needs be distracted, and no man dare to obey the Sovereign Power farther than it shall seem good in his own eyes.”
Following his article, Fish was roundly criticized for being half-right in his interpretation of conflicting conscience, but intellectual disagreement continues to divide mostly implacable and partisan ethicists. Nancy Berlinger in an ensuing Hastings Center Report[ii] has this to say: ‘Stanley Fish… recognizes that defining “conscience” more loosely – as “moral intuition,” or those “secret thoughts”…  does not solve our contemporary problem. When medical professionals believe that they are being forced to do harm or are prevented from doing good, the ethical solution may not always be the conscience-clause remedy of stepping away from troubling situations.’

Where does this leave the medical professional when it comes to ethical underpinnings of doing what’s right or wrong? Would our personal conscience suffice? Or, should we subsume to the greater wisdom of our collective professional voice (e.g. national medical associations, professional bodies, world medical association, medical councils, etc.), which through the long arduous passage of time and historical experiences, would have honed a burnished if straitjacketed version of what’s generally accepted as “ethically and publicly correct”?
Be that as it may, does this mean that the medical professional would then have no need to rely on his own personal conscience and moral standing? No, but surely if these are diametrically opposed to the greater wisdom of peers, then one has to justify one’s personal convictions all the more!
Again, this cannot be taken out of context of the prevailing society and sociopolitical situation. This becomes extremely relevant in societies such as in Malaysia and other quasi-democratic nations, where governments tend to be paternalistic, even arrogant or worse.[iii] The instruments and institutions of power are often abused to forcefully interpret laws or even medical findings in a slanted manner, which severely test the mettle and autonomy of physicians under their charge.
In certain authoritative or political circumstances, the medical professional is called upon to exercise extreme judgement calls, which can be sorely tested by either threats from or fears of authority (e.g. police, superior officers, military, even political powers) or worse, direct or indirect ‘rewards’ for passive compliance!
The 1st century AD Hindu code, Charaka Samhita[iv], exhorts doctors to “endeavour for the relief of patients with all thy heart and soul; thou shall not desert or injure thy patient for the sake of thy life or living”, which have been restated in many codes of professional conduct including our own. Yet, these are often pushed to the backburner, when conflicts of duties, arise.
Recently in Malaysia, public spats on medical testimonials and reports have arguably cast long shadows as to the so-called impartiality, ethics or professionalism of some of our medical colleagues.[v] Forensic pathologists are facing some intense scrutiny of late, due to questionable lapses, incoherent practices and perhaps even perceived selective memories, and slipshod standards of duty of care.[vi]
Other physicians making medical reports are also put under the microscope for their perceived biasness or slant of their reports, one way or the other, until the truthfulness of one vs. the other, appears difficult or impossible to discover![vii]
Such ambiguous if disingenuous medical findings or reports cast a dismal if disappointing view on our profession.[viii] While some of these appear coerced, some might conceivably be simply venal, just as if medical veracity can be made to sway according to the purchasing power of the most damning and powerful!
Physicians must be reminded that for that patient (deceased or detainee) under his/her charge, there is frequently no other person whose interests can be represented, except from the physician’s unbiased assessment…
Sadly some of these dubious practices place us at odds with the perceived wisdom and conventions of some greater external collective conscience. These conventions although seemingly unenforceable, have long been articulated by world authorities such as the World Medical Association and even the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
The UN High Commission for Human Rights Istanbul Protocol[ix] is categorical in stating that:
“Dilemmas arising from these dual obligations are particularly acute for health professionals working with the police, military, other security services or in the prison system. The interests of their employer and their non-medical colleagues may be in conflict with the best interests of the detainee patients. Such health professionals with dual obligations, owe a primary duty to the patient to promote that person’s best interests and a general duty to society to ensure that justice is done and violations of human rights prevented. Whatever the circumstances of their employment, all health professionals owe a fundamental duty to care for the people they are asked to examine or treat. They cannot be obliged by contractual or other considerations to compromise their professional independence. They must make an unbiased assessment of the patient’s health interests and act accordingly.”
Unfortunately, this protection by convention appears so remote to the lonely physician standing in the grips of perceived authoritarian powers, whose influence are imaginably all-powerful!
Seen in this context, society must exert its moral imperative of the public good on a universal basis, and demand the application of such universal conventions, to protect the hapless physician at the centre of such political or partisan storms, lest such pressure lead to further erosion of already debilitated institutions.
Similarly, the onus is on members of the medical profession to remain steadfast to the doctrine of public conscience and universal principles rather than personal ones, when carrying out our duties, including when making judgement or pronouncement on some of our possibly errant colleagues. Sectarian perceptions whether religious or political, clearly must take a back seat, and should not be allowed to colour our thinking or decision making.
Personal bias or experience or even conviction should yield to the more nuanced, perhaps more balanced decision based on strict interpretations of statutes, codes of professional conduct, and perhaps legal precedents.
The US Supreme Court[x] has ruled that when the personal imperatives of one’s religion or morality lead to actions in violation of generally applicable laws — laws not promulgated with the intention of affronting anyone’s conscience — the violations will not be allowed and will certainly not be celebrated; because: “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Therefore, we must be quite clear to dissect conscionably our dilemma of which is the superior right.
Similarly, in the context of political or authoritarian pressure, especially where democratic institutions are weak, and where risk to the individual may seem likely, it behooves the professional to be reminded about the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Geneva[xi], which is a modern restatement of the Hippocratic values, as well as to be cognizant of UN Conventions such as the Istanbul Protocol. Doctors are reminded that the health of their patients is their primary consideration and that we must devote themselves to the service of humanity with conscience and dignity.
We must learn from and adhere to our historical memories, which are collectively acknowledged as “correct” and first and foremost for our patients’ interests. Certainly, in this context, every professional should not let religious, political or sectarian reasons from influencing our decision-making.
But does this mean that these are fixtures which cannot or should not be modified with the passage of time and perhaps move in tandem with the “fashion” or faddism of current perceptions or even societal movement or direction?
Clearly this will depend on the circumstances and the human aspects of all patient-physician interactions. Although ethics these days are not as immovable or as permanently cast in stone, societal views do evolve. Like sometimes shifting tides, ethical perceptions may very gradually ebb and flow, but often with the anchored moorings and underpinnings of moral public good and greater and greater foundation of universal values.
So changes may occur, but again these must be based on contextual interpretation which should be carefully justified so that the newer interpretation can withstand scrutiny and/or rigorous re-examination, by an increasingly knowledgeable public and also by even more discerning generations of similar professionals.
Thus, personal conscience and public conscience must be employed together to shape our moral compass when we are dealing with ethics and medical professionalism. It helps when we all undertake to reexamine our own values and learn more and more as to how these ethical dilemmas and questions are evolving in this day and age. We must not be cowed into a mindset of convenient way out or of callous expediency.[xii]

References:

[i] Stanley Fish. Opinionator. Conscience vs. Conscience. The New York Times. The Opinion pages. 12 April, 2009. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/conscience-vs-conscience/ (Accessed 26 Jan 2011)
[ii] Nancy Berlinger. Conscience: We’re Not Donne Yet. Bioethics Forum. The Hastings Center Report. 07 May 2009. http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=3404&blogid=140 (Accessed 26 Jan 2011)
[iii] David KL Quek. Unbiased treatment for all. Malaysiakini, March 23, 2010. http://myhealth-matters.blogspot.com/search?q=ethics+conscience (Accessed 26 Jan 2011)
[iv] Roy, P. Gupta, H. Charaka Samhita . A scientific synopsis. 2nd Ed., Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, India, 1980.
[vi] David KL Quek. Ethics, medical confidentiality vs. political pressures. Malaysiakini July 31, 2008. http://dq-liberte.blogspot.com/2008/07/ethics-medical-confidentiality-vs.html (Accessed 26 Jan 2011)
[viii] David KL Quek. Physicians must be more vigilant. Malaysiakini 11 March 2009. http://myhealth-matters.blogspot.com/2009/03/doctors-must-be-vigilant-when-dealing.html (accessed 26 Jan 2011)
[ix] Istanbul Protocol. Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. United Nations, Geneva, 1999. 
[x] Scalia, J., Opinion of the Court. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; 494 U.S. 872. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON No. 88-1213 Argued: Nov. 6, 1989; Decided: April 17, 1990
[xi] WMA Declaration of Geneva. Revised 173rd Council Session, Divonne-les-Bains, France, May 2006. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/index.html (Accessed 26 Jan 2011)
[xii] David KL Quek. A New Malaysia still possible. Malaysiakini, March 9, 2010. http://dq-liberte.blogspot.com/2010/03/malaysiakini-new-malaysia-still.html (accessed 26 Jan 2011)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Global Strategies in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Asia Pacific Perspectives


Global Strategies in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Asia Pacific Perspectives
Dr David KL Quek, FRCP, FNHAM, FACC
In May 2009, the Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) Alliance launched a successful campaign for a United Nations High-Level Summit on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). This will take place on 19-20 September 2011 in New York.[i] The convening of this NCD Summit will highlight the growing pandemic of preventable yet escalating risk factors, which predisposes more and more citizens around the world to premature death and morbidity.
One of its major premises is to “prioritize measures to reduce the NCD burden in developed and developing countries by strengthening health systems and primary care infrastructures across the continuum of care – prevention, early diagnosis, treatment, adherence and ongoing disease management.”

An important NCD Alliance resolution recognizes “the lack of sufficient statistical data on non-communicable diseases, particularly in developing countries, and the need for the development and wide utilization of a set of standardized indicators for data collection and information on trends in respect of non-communicable diseases and their risk factors at the global, regional and national levels.”


Development, Ageing & Lifestyle changes in Asia Pacific populations
In Asia Pacific countries, population health profiles have been changing drastically, with greater percentages of their population ageing rapidly. Cardiovascular diseases have become the predominant causes of mortality and morbidity. In 2005, Asia Pacific countries account for more than half the world’s Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost due to CVD for both men and women.[ii]

In the United States, cardiovascular disease accounts for >800 000 deaths, >7 million hospital discharges and chronically affects >80 million adults, per year.[iii] The projected US healthcare cost of CVD in 2010 is half a trillion dollars. Although CVD death rates among younger Americans (35-54 years)[iv] appear to have plateaued, the overall future CVD burden is projected to increase due to population ageing and increasing prevalence of obesity and diabetes.[v]

Similarly in the Asia Pacific region, rapid economic development has also led to the rising prevalence of overweight and obesity, with diabetes increasing even more quickly.[vi] A moderate increase in body mass index and central obesity makes South Asians more prone to insulin resistance. In Malaysia, our population rate for diabetes has reached 14.9% of adults (>30 years old), surveyed recently in 2006.[vii]  But there are ethnic differences in the association between diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease and stroke within Asian populations.[viii],[ix]

  
Women, Menopause and CV Risks
Globally there is increased awareness that women have been neglected somewhat in our approach to the management or under-identification of cardiovascular risks and disease. We are increasingly aware that women could become the next potential health risk explosion in CVD. As more and more women outlive men and join the ranks of the elderly, they would become the next under-estimated cohort of CVD patients.

Post-menopausal changes are recognized as influencing more adverse CV risk profiles for women. In Malaysia, the National Heart Association of Malaysia has formed our WH2O, (Women Heart Health Organisation) to re-emphasise our commitment to addressing this societal need.

The SWAN (Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation) studied the influence of aging and menopause on cardiovascular risk factors in a subset of 1,054 women.[x] Matthews et al., found that following menopause and beyond 50 years of age, lipid profiles change for the worse, i.e. total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, apo-B lipoprotein increase, while HDL-cholesterol and apo-A1 lipoprotein decrease. Whether the threshold levels for lipid-lowering therapy should change around the time of menopause or whether the absolute or relative degree of change in lipids (independent of premenopausal levels) predicts future CHD events merits further study.[xi] However, the menopause-associated changes in total cholesterol, LDL-C, and Apo B probably contribute to women’s increased risk of CHD in the post-menopausal years.

Major take-home points for the clinician are that risk factor levels do change around the menopausal transition, in part due to chronologic aging and some related to the climacteric itself. Women should be made aware that their cardiovascular risk is likely to increase during this period. They should be counseled to emphasize therapeutic lifestyle changes to combat such increases. During this time it may be prudent to increase the frequency of risk factor monitoring to identify higher risk women, who may benefit from pharmacologic management of their risk factors beyond simply lifestyle modification.11


Lifetime Risk of Developing Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)
Lifetime risk of developing CHD increases with age, primarily because of progressive atherosclerosis due to deteriorating risk profiles, which affects the ageing vascular system.
At any given age however, men are at greater risk (49% higher) for CHD than women (32% higher), after the age of 40 years. Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) rates in women after menopause are 2 to 3 times higher than in women of the same age before menopause.[xii]

In a 1999 analysis of the Framingham Study database, 7733 patients were followed up for a total of 109 948 person-years. Overall, 1157 participants developed coronary heart disease. 1312 died from non-coronary heart disease causes. Lifetime risk of coronary heart disease at age 40 years was 48.6% (95% CI 45.8—51.3) for men and 31.7% (29.2—34.2) for women. At age 70 years, lifetime risk was 34.9% (31.2—38.7) for men and 24.2% (21.4—27.0) for women. After excluding isolated angina pectoris as an initial event, the lifetime risk of coronary artery disease events at age 40 years was 42·4% for men and 24·9% for women. Lifetime risk at age 40 years is one in two for men and one in three for women. Even at age 70 years it is one in three for men and one in four for women.[xiii]

A 2006 re-analysis of the Framingham data yielded and confirmed that lifetime prediction of CV risks can be carried out consistently.[xiv] The test cohort studied included all Framingham Heart Study participants who were free of CVD (myocardial infarction, coronary insufficiency, angina, stroke, claudication) at 50 years of age. Lifetime risks to 95 years of age were estimated for men and women, with death free of CVD as a competing event. 3564 men and 4362 women were followed for 111,777 person-years.

1757 had CVD events and 1641 died free of CVD. At 50 years of age, lifetime risks were 51.7% (95% CI, 49.3 to 54.2) for men and 39.2% (95% CI, 37.0 to 41.4) for women, with median survivals of 30 and 36 years, respectively. With more adverse levels of single risk factors, lifetime risks increased and median survivals decreased. Compared with participants with 2 major risk factors, those with optimal levels had substantially lower lifetime risks (5.2% versus 68.9% in men, 8.2% versus 50.2% in women) and markedly longer median survivals (39 versus 28 years in men, 39 versus 31 years in women).


Data from the UK also show similar outcomes: those with optimal CV risks (optimal cholesterol level, non-smoking, BP levels) have clearly better survival curves.[xv] In brief, those who have lowest CV risks at age 50 years are expected to have longer life expectancies by up to as many as 10 years over those who are of the highest CV risks!

Current Status & Controversies of CVD Prevention
An impressive array of epidemiological data has suggested that primary prevention is now a must to meaningfully impact on health outcomes for most nations of the world. Together with evidence-based medical and procedural therapies, we can now decrease case-fatality and reduce recurrent CVD events very aggressively (secondary prevention).

But primary prevention, i.e. to reduce chances of first event, is difficult to implement. Often, resources for the public who are relatively ‘well’ or symptom-free are limited and sporadic. Convincing the relevant authorities is difficult and large-scale community level projects are expensive and compete with other more urgent and concrete pressing social needs and services. Getting the public themselves to abide by or buy into prevention programmes is at best voluntary and may not be sustainable. These are often seen as unnecessary, imposing and restrictive, especially on lifestyle choices!

Many CVD patients have common predisposing risk factors, i.e. smoking, adverse dietary patterns, overweight, and sedentary lifestyles — leading to adverse blood lipid, blood glucose, & blood pressure levels. However, the majority of first CVD events occur in individuals with average or only mildly elevated levels of risk factors (who would not typically qualify for intensive prevention efforts).[xvi] In this category of indeterminate risks, the problem arises as to how we can recommend any wide-scale public health measure.

We currently have studies, which show that treating pre-hypertension,[xvii] or pre-diabetes[xviii],[xix],[xx] may actually delay the full-fledged development of hypertensive or diabetic complications and sequelae. Just how we can persuade ‘well’ but just marginally-off (the bell-curve tails) patients to consider long-term medications, remains a challenge. We do not have longer outcome data to convince us that survival and/or quality of life are actually improved and that the adverse effects of prolonged medications are entirely benign.

Even though we do have extensive and convincing primary prevention data on lowering LDL cholesterol,[xxi],[xxii] many among the public remain unconvinced that using statins interminably and aggressively is the answer. There are lingering public fears that longer term adverse effects remain undisclosed or worse suppressed by the ‘drug’ vendors![xxiii],[xxiv],[xxv] The respected Cochrane database systematic review stated that while the benefits of statin use in primary prevention is proven with no major adverse effects, caution should still be taken in prescribing statins for primary prevention among people at ‘low’ cardiovascular risk.24

Controversy therefore remains whether there are any subsets (high CRP?) of patients with supposedly higher risks that really need treatment.[xxvi] Thus, population-based CVD prevention should still best be achieved through lifestyle and environmental modifications. Long-term and indiscriminate or blunderbuss medication prescription is still considered inappropriate by many,[xxvii] and other strategies are needed to shift the entire distribution of risk. Over-the-counter statin (simvastatin 10 mg) policy changes in the UK have not reached thresholds to make this a meaningful public health programme a success story, even as of now.

Primordial Prevention: Moving beyond primary and secondary prevention
Recently, there has been wider discussion on targeting the population for modification, even before some of these risk factors rear their heads—a term titled primordial prevention. Primordial prevention strategies have the potential to reduce the population burden of CVD substantially by preventing the development of adverse risk factors.3



This radical concept is gaining ground. Recent studies show that individuals, who maintain a profile of ideal cardiovascular risk factor levels from young adulthood into middle age, can essentially avoid (even escape) major CV events for their remaining lifetime. Indeed, achieving ideal cardiovascular profiles younger can reduce both CVD and non-CVD mortality rates, resulting in an average additional 10 years of longevity!13,14 These individuals also have markedly better health-related quality of life at older ages and also have lower annual Medicare costs. Conversely, any adverse level of a risk factor in middle age substantially increases lifetime risks for CVD. The American Heart Association recently endorsed primordial prevention as a powerful new mechanism for improving cardiovascular health in all Americans in the coming decade.5

Capewell et al,3 argued that if a majority of the population attains middle age with a prescribed ideal or optimal ‘phenotype’, more than 90% of the coronary heart disease deaths otherwise expected, might be prevented. However, barely 5% of the US population now maintains this ideal CV profile into middle age. It is likely that in Malaysia this is also the case, if not worse.

Thus, it begs an important question: Which effective public health policies could promote primordial prevention and maintain ideal cardiovascular health into middle age? This change would require a drastically different but conducive environment that supports health, rather than, as now, promoting obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and inactivity.

Effective CV Prevention Strategies[xxviii]
Prevention efforts are classified into 2 complementary categories: “high-risk” and “population-based” strategies. High-risk strategies focus on identifying, detecting and treating individuals, who have high short-term risk for CVD. High-risk strategies are medically based and usually proven effective for persons with high CVD risk. These are immediately result-oriented and are usually very cost-effective even if rather costly, on a per individual basis.

Complementary “population-based” strategies aim to improve the entire population by favorably shifting the distribution of risk factors. They modify or force behavioural change for the masses. Population-based strategies while difficult to implement are surprisingly effective and have resulted in quite rapid measurable benefits.

Several meta-analyses and reviews on indoor smoking bans and secondhand smoke in the United States, Canada Italy and Scotland have shown "remarkable consistency" in the association between bans and reductions in heart attack rates, ranging from 6 % to 47 %.[xxix],[xxx],[xxxi]

Likewise, CVD rates in Poland decreased within 3 years after the repeal of subsidies for meat and animal fats in the early1990s.[xxxii]

The successful North Karelia Project, begun in Finland in the 1970s, is the classic example of a national public health policy at its best. Its comprehensive, community-based and national policy interventions, which focused on favorably influencing dietary habits (drastically discouraging fatty meat and dairy product consumption) and reducing smoking, resulted in huge decreases (80%) in CVD mortality rates over 25 years.[xxxiii]


CV Prevention: Regulatory & Dietary Options[xxxiv]
National and local governments and health organizations are now addressing CVD prevention with both such approaches.

First, physicians must be actively encouraged to identify and treat individuals at high cardiovascular risk. Second, policy and regulatory initiatives must be enacted, to incentivize population-wide behavioural change (e.g. promoting good dietary habits, smoke-free legislation, salt or sugar reduction, regular physical activity).

However, some government policies may sometimes be conflicted; e.g. continued subsidies for certain crops (tobacco, corn) that can promote disease rather than health. Agricultural subsidies can be used more positively; e.g. encouraging or incentivizing a farming shift from dairy to berry production; and making fruits cheap and favoured for schoolchildren.

Enlightened governments may also provide favorable subsidies or policies that promote and prefer polyunsaturated vegetable oils, skim milk, whole grains, or fresh fruits and vegetables. Regulation, legislation, and partnering with the food industry have great potential too. Concerted and consistent efforts of reducing salt in the food chain can also lead to substantial benefits. Likewise, potentially large benefits might occur from implementation of broader dietary strategies for reducing or avoiding intake of greasy high-calorie fast foods, re-used trans fats and/or saturated fats.

Economic concerns[xxxv]
Rising health care cost is a perennial problem for all governments, globally. Cardiovascular disease burden is rising worldwide. The Asia Pacific region is poised to taking the lead of being affected by disproportionately highest rates of disease-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to CVD!

This growing CVD economic burden is driven by 3 factors: new technology and tertiary specialist care such as revascularization procedures, hospital care, and prescriptions for costly medications, e.g. statins, antihypertensive, diabetes, and obesity drugs. Thus, reliable cost-effective strategies and estimates for preventive interventions are critically important.

Thus far, medication-based primary prevention appears relatively costly; the number needed to treat (NNT) statistic remains to be better refined and improved to the point of acceptable cost-efficacy pertinent to every socio-economic entity and nation. Initial outlays for these measures for poorer countries must be made affordable through the wider and more appropriate use of cheaper and yet equivalently effective generic medicines.

The cost of these on a nationwide scale must not compete with budgets for other more pressing social needs and priorities. Conversely, primordial prevention interventions might generate savings when targeting specific behaviors such as smoking cessation, dietary cholesterol reduction, or increasing physical activity; but such measures are difficult to inculcate as a population or cultural behaviour change.

Studies from United States, Australia, and United Kingdom consistently suggest & show that population-wide prevention programs substantially reduce health care expenditures. Thus, these must be taken as effective role models to emulate.

An economic model commissioned by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was recently developed for the entire UK population of 60 million.[xxxvi] Conservative estimates suggest that any policy intervention, which results to a 1% population-wide reduction in CVD risk factor level, would be cost saving. Reducing mean population cholesterol levels or blood pressure levels by 5% or enacting legislation to eliminate trans fats or reduce dietary salt intake by 3 g per day, was each estimated to cost save in excess of $1 billion per year!

Greater Commitment to Prevention Strategies for the Population
Health officials, including doctors and patients, need a better understanding of the consequences of conflicting trends in CVD risk factors and the different options for reducing the future burden of CVD globally. Ideally, large population-based research should compare various mixes of intervention strategies, but many such studies are not readily feasible or forthcoming.

Large-scale prevention strategies need to be validated via policy models. The best models use extensive data-mining of population risk-factor profiles and disease prevalence, with subsequent computer-intense simulation of the effects of different interventions. But developing nations must allocate more resources and training personnel to collecting basic and more in-depth data of their own population’s health profiles, disease patterns and needs.

We need greater understanding of the potential benefits and optimal mix of current and future preventive strategies. Escalating current and future projected health care costs and the huge immediate costs of implementing long-term CVD prevention programs, may hamper and delay effective strategies for CVD prevention. The status quo is not acceptable politically, ethically, or economically.


Disclosure & Provenance statement
No conflict of interest or disclosure is relevant in the writing of this paper. Certain points in the above paper have been presented as a lecture “Managing Cardiovascular Disease in the Asia Pacific”, at the 4th Scientific Meeting of the Asia Pacific Menopause Federation (APMF) in Sydney, Australia on 26-29 September 2010.


References:

[i] World Health Organization, 64th World Health Assembly, Geneva, 86th plenary meeting, 13-20 May 2010. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 64/265. Prevention and control of non-communicable diseases.
[ii] Mathers CD. Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS medicine, 2006, 3(1), e442.
[iii] Simon Capewell; Donald M. Lloyd-Jones. Optimal Cardiovascular Prevention Strategies for the 21st Century. JAMA. 2010;304(18):2057-2058
[iv] Ford ES, Capewell S. Coronary heart disease mortality among young adults in the US from 1980 through 2002: concealed leveling of mortality rates. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(22):2128-2132
[v] Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, et al; American Heart Association Statistics. Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121(7):e46-e215.
[vi] Shigetake Sasayama. Heart Disease in Asia. Circulation 2008; 118:2669-2671.
[vii] Institute of Public Health, Ministry of Health. The Third National Health & Morbidity Survey 2006, Malaysia, 2008
[viii] WHO global database: data for saving lives. Geneva, World Health Organisation. See: http:// www.who.int/infobase/compare.aspx.
[ix] Ueshima H, Sekikawa A, Miura K, Turin CT, Kadowaki T, Nakamura Y, Okamura T. Takashima N, Kita Y, Watanabe M, Kadota A, Okuda N. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Factors in Asia: A Selected Review. Circulation 2008;118;2702-2709
[x] Karen A. Matthews, Sybil L. Crawford, Claudia U. Chae, Susan A. Everson-Rose, Mary Fran Sowers, Barbara Sternfeld,
Kim Sutton-Tyrrell. Are Changes in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Midlife Women Due to Chronological Aging or to the Menopausal Transition? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009;54;2366-2373
[xi] Vera Bittner. Menopause, Age, and Cardiovascular Risk: A Complex Relationship. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009;54;2374-2375
[xii] American Heart Association. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: 2005 Update. Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; 2004.
[xiii] Lloyd-Jones DM, Larson MG, Beiser A, Levy D. Lifetime risk of developing coronary artery disease.. Lancet 1999; 353: 89-92.
[xiv] Lloyd-Jones DM, Leip EP, Larson MG, D’Agostino RB, Beiser A, Wilson PWF, Wolf PA, and Levy D. Prediction of Lifetime Risk for Cardiovascular Disease by Risk Factor Burden at 50 Years of Age. Circulation 2006;113: 791-798
[xv] Silvia Ulrich, Aroon D Hingorani, John Martin, Patrick Vallance. Lifetime risk of developing coronary heart disease. The Lancet, 1999; 353(9156): 925.
[xvi] Gupta AK, Brashear MM, Johnson WD. Coexisting prehypertension and prediabetes in healthy adults: a pathway for accelerated cardiovascular events. Hypertension Research (2011) 34, 456–461
[xvii] Thompson AM, Hu T, Eshelbrenner CL, Reynolds K, He J, Bazzano LA. Antihypertensive Treatment and Secondary
Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Events Among Persons Without Hypertension: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;305(9):913-922
[xviii] Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346(6):393-403.
[xix] Li CL, Pan CY, Lu JM, Zhu Y, Wang JH, Deng XX, et al. Effect of metformin on patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabet Med 1999;16(6):477-81.
[xx] Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Mary S, Mukesh B, Bhaskar AD, Vijay V; Indian Diabetes Prevention Programme (IDPP). The Indian Diabetes Prevention Programme shows that lifestyle modification and metformin prevent type 2 diabetes in Asian Indian subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IDPP-1). Diabetologia 2006;48(2):289-97.
[xxi] Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:1301.
[xxii] Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:2195.
[xxiii] Caro J, Klittich W, McGuire A, et al. International economic analysis of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with pravastatin in WOSCOPS. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study. Eur Heart J 1999; 20:263.
[xxiv] Taylor F, Ward K, Moore TH, et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 1:CD004816.
[xxv] Ray KK, Seshasai SR, Erqou S, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65,229 participants. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:1024.
[xxvi] Wolfgang Koenig; Paul M Ridker. Rosuvastatin for Primary Prevention in Patients with European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation Risk ≥5% or Framingham Risk >20% Post Hoc Analyses of the JUPITER Trial Requested by European Health Authorities. European Heart Journal. 2011;32(1):75-83.

[xxvii] de Lorgeril M, Salen P, Abramson J, Dodin S, Hamazaki T, Kostucki W, Okuyama H, Pavy B, Rabaeus M. Cholesterol Lowering, Cardiovascular Diseases, and the Rosuvastatin – JUPITER Controversy A Critical Reappraisal. Arch Intern Med. 2010;  170(12): 1032-1036 .

[xxviii] Rose G. The Strategy of Preventive Medicine. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1992.
[xxix] Institute of Medicine. Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence. Report Brief: October 2009.
[xxx] Bartecchi, C., R. N. Alsever, C. Nevin-Woods, W. M. Thomas, R. O. Estacio, B. B. Bartelson, and M. J. Krantz. 2006. Reduction in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction associated with a citywide smoking ordinance. Circulation 114(14):1490-1496.
[xxxi] Meyers DG. Meyers, Neuberger, He J. Cardiovascular Effect of Bans on Smoking in Public Places: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysi. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1249–55
[xxxii] Zatonski W, Campos H, Willett W. Rapid declines in coronary heart disease mortality in Eastern Europe are associated with increased consumption of oils rich in alpha-linolenic acid. Eur J Epidemiol. 2008;23(1):3-10
[xxxiii] Puska P, Vartiainen E, Tuohmilehto J, Salomaa V, Nissinen A. Changes in premature deaths in Finland: successful long-term prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Bull World Health Organ. 1998;76(4):419-425
[xxxiv] Capewell S, Ford ES, Croft JB, Critchley JA, Greenlund KJ, Labarthe DR. Cardiovascular
risk factor trends and potential for reducing coronary heart disease mortality in the United States of America. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(2):120-130.
[xxxv] Bibbins-Domingo K, Chertow GM, Coxson PG, et al. Projected effect of dietary salt reductions on future cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(7):590-599.
[xxxvi] National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE Public Health Guidance 25: Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Population Level. London, England: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2010.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)