Key result
Primary care CVD guidelines reduce disease burden ~19% with substantial cost savings in South Africa.
Why the study?
Does implementation of WHO PEN or SA PC 101 guidelines improve DALYs averted and cost-effectiveness compared to current treatment levels in South Africa?
Does implementation of WHO PEN or SA PC 101 guidelines improve DALYs averted and cost-effectiveness compared to current treatment levels in South Africa?
Absolute Event Rate: 32.5% vs 40%
Implementing structured cardiovascular risk management guidelines like SA PC 101 or WHO PEN in South Africa is highly cost-effective and averts significant DALYs compared to current care.
Cardiovascular diseases and their risk factors-particularly hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and diabetes- have become an increasing concern for middle-income countries. Using newly available, nationally representative data, we assessed how cardiovascular risk factors are distributed across subpopulations within South Africa and identified which cardiovascular treatments should be prioritised. We created a demographically representative simulated population for South Africa and used data from 17 743 respondents aged 15 years or older of the 2012 South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (SANHANES) to assign information on cardiovascular risk factors to each member of the simulated population. We created a microsimulation model to estimate the health and economic implications of two globally recognised treatment recommendations: WHO's package of essential non-communicable disease interventions (PEN) and South Africa's Primary Care 101 (SA PC 101) guidelines. The primary outcome was total disabilityadjusted life-years (DALYs) averted through treatment of all cardiovascular disease or microvascular type 2 diabetes complications per 1000 population. We compared outcomes at the aspirational level of achieving access to treatment among 70% of the population. Based on the SANHANES data, South Africans had a high prevalence of hypertension (24.8%), dyslipidemia (17.5%), and diabetes (15.3%). Prevalence was disproportionately high and treatment low among male, black, and poor populations. Our simulated population experienced a burden of 40.0 DALYs (95% CI 29.5-52.0) per 1000 population per year from cardiovascular disease or type 2 diabetes complications at current treatment levels, which lowered to 32.9 DALYs (24.4-44.7) under WHO PEN implementation and to 32.5 (24.4-44.8) under SA PC 101 implementation. Under both guidelines, there were increases in blood pressure treatment (4.2 percentage points under WHO PEN vs 12.6 percentage points under SA PC 101), lipid treatment (16.0 vs 14.9), and glucose control medications (1.2 vs 0.6). The incremental cost-effectiveness of implementing SA PC 101 over current treatment would be a saving of US$24 902 (95% CI 14 666-62 579) per DALY averted compared with a saving of $17 587 (1840-42 589) under WHO PEN guidelines. Cardiovascular risk factors are common and disproportionate among disadvantaged populations in South Africa. Treatment with blood pressure agents and statins might need greater prioritisation than blood glucose therapies, which contrasts with observed treatment levels despite a lower monthly cost of blood pressure or statin treatment than of sulfonylurea or insulin treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Human Sciences Research Council (2026) studied Cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes (n=17,743). WHO PEN and SA PC 101 guidelines vs. Current treatment levels was evaluated on Total disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted through treatment of all cardiovascular disease or microvascular type 2 diabetes complications per 1000 population. Implementing SA PC 101 or WHO PEN guidelines in South Africa would reduce the disease burden from 40.0 to 32.5 and 32.9 DALYs per 1000 population per year, respectively, with significant cost savings.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: