Hide table of contents

Intro

Ever been to the doctor and have them give you those 2 funky numbers?

That's called blood pressure honey.

Me and @Hussein Khambhalia spent around 2 hours on the weekend to see if we had the ability to calculate the cost effectiveness of something. That weekend we looked into potassium chloride fortification in the US.

Semi inspired by: Europe Should Require Foods Be Fortified With Folate 

Context

Nearly half of adults have high blood pressure (48.1%, 119.9 million). This is defined as a systolic blood pressure greater than 130 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure greater than 80 mmHg or are taking medication for high blood pressure.[1]

About 1 in 4 adults with high blood pressure has their blood pressure under control (22.5%, 27.0 million).[1]

High blood pressure costs the United States about $131 billion each year, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.[1]

In 2022, high blood pressure was a primary or contributing cause of 685,875 deaths in the United States.[1]

 

https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/global-health-estimates-leading-causes-of-dalys
The ones we will look at today are Ischaemic heart disease aka Coronary Heart Disease.
And Stroke
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/global-health-estimates-leading-causes-of-dalys

Pulling it out from the data above:

Ischaemic heart disease (Coronary Heart Disease) - 2556.34 DALY rate per 100,000 population

Stroke: 1024.89 DALY rate per 100,000 population

Intervention

Morton Lite Salt, 11 oz - Walmart.com - Walmart.com

Potassium chloride can be used as a salt substitute for food, but due to its weak, bitter, unsalty flavor[2], it is often mixed with ordinary table salt (sodium chloride) to improve the taste, to form low sodium salt. [3]

Every 10 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the risk ... coronary heart disease (0·83, 0·78-0·88), stroke (0·73, 0·68-0·77) ...[4]

Calculations

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32500831/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-2-uid-1

Let's say we attempt to fortify the USA with potassium chloride.

This corresponds to about a drop in Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) of 1mmHg, which will reduce stroke and CAD risk.

Given that a slice of white bread has around 150mg sodium, it's not unreasonable that we could fortify people's food to hit 230mg a day.

Recall:

  • Ischaemic heart disease (Coronary Heart Disease) - 2556.34 DALY rate per 100,000 population
  • Stroke: 1024.89 DALY rate per 100,000 population

The US population in 2019 was 328.3 million.

Therefore, the total burden of CAD and Stroke in the US is around:
 

Assuming a linear relationship of the disease risk factors. A drop of 1mmHg in SBP works to reduce the risk of the disease by:

Thus, this intervention would net us:


Total DALYs saved:

Costs

Here is an estimate that suggests the cost of fortifying folic acid is linear ~ $1.5 million being the fixed cost. Cheaper than I expected. Thus we are assuming fixed costs are relatively trivial.

Estimates of annual fortification costs for the 140-mcg fortification strategy ($3.3 million) were based on those used by Grosse and colleagues, and those for the two hypothetical scenarios ($6.0 and $10.6 million for 350-mcg and 700-mcg fortification strategies, respectively)[5]

Below we can see the cost of potassium chloride is about $300 a metric ton.

Around $300 USD per metric ton
https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=potassium-chloride

If we try to get 0.5g of potassium chloride to every American that would be about 164,150 metric tons. A naive calculation would give us $50 million as the material cost.

Canada produces at least 25 million tons a year (no idea how much of that is food grade). Which means that we aren't hitting a physical limit at least.

bar chart
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/mining-data-statistics-and-analysis/minerals-metals-facts/potash-facts/20521

Because I have no idea on the price elasticity of potassium chloride, we will go from the $300 to up to 8x the cost for visualisation purpose. 

And the final results:

Program CostCost/DALYCost/Life (80 years)
$50 million$214$17,129
$100 million$428$34,258
$200 million$856$68,516
$400 million$1,712$137,033

Given that most Western countries value a DALY in excess of $50,000,[6] this seems like an interesting route to look more into?

Problems

I suspect there's a lot of problems, would love to hear your thoughts! Here is a non exhaustive list that I could think of:

  • Palatability issues
  • Potassium Chloride food grade manufacturing cost
  • Potassium Chloride commodity price elasticity
  • Adverse effects from those who are sensitive to potassium, i.e. hyperkalemia
  • People who already have low blood pressure

But on the flipside there are things that could make potassium chloride fortification stronger:

  • Marginal benefit of one less CAD/Stroke victim, i.e. their productivity or getting to spend the resources on their medical care elsewhere. $131 billion a year is a lot.
  • Reduction in risks for not just Stroke, and CAD but all Cardiovascular diseases
  • The intervention in another country being cheaper than the US

Conclusion

It was quite satisfying to synthesise a concrete number. LARPing as a bad GiveWell employee was overall pretty fun! I think we might continue + with any feedback.

I hope this inspires others to give it ago, maybe an attempt to recalculate our number more comprehensively or test out another intervention.

As an aside, I hope everyone checks their blood pressure and try to keep it at a healthy number, it's called the silent killer for a reason. Maybe you might try some potassium chloride ;)

Comments13


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Supplements with a U-shaped benefit/harm curve like that and different effects in different subgroups aren't appropriate for universal supplementation. This is not that different to trying to add antihypertensives to the water supply.

Like most antihypertensive treatment, potassium supplementation needs to be implemented case-by-case and on a voluntary basis so that the subpopulation that needs less potassium aren't involuntarily harmed.

btw I'm a fan, your vid helped get me sign the pledge last year!

Supplements with a U-shaped benefit/harm curve like that and different effects in different subgroups aren't appropriate for universal supplementation.

Is this a like a medical rule of thumb?

I'd just imagine that all the other commonly fortified minerals and vitamins are u-shaped in outcomes. Calcium, iodine causing hyperthyroidism. It'd just depend on the risks.

I did already glance at how likely potassium would harm others and you might find the current information interesting:

https://examine.com/supplements/potassium/#what-are-potassiums-main-drawbacks

The studies suggest that so far it seems quite safe. However there could be a mild (1-2) point increase in blood pressure at the low doses for people who aren't hypertensive, which shouldn't impose much risk.

I think that U-curve is narrower with potassium than with iodine, calcium, or fluoride. The consequence of severe hyperkalemia is cardiac arrest so it's quite serious. Most people would have to consume a lot of potassium to get to that point but certain subgroups - people with kidney failure for example - would be susceptible.

Definitely an assumption of mine: but those with kidney issues would already have to be educated on what foods/minerals to avoid I had imagined.

Would you happen to know any other subgroups?

And many patients don't listen or they make mistakes. In an opt-in system that is considered their responsibility, but in an opt-out system like you're proposing, bad outcome will be blamed on the potassium fortification program. Not politically viable

I see, appreciate the responses

Thanks so much for this - I love quick cost-effectiveness attempts and this is an interesting idea - strong Upvote! I agree with @Henry Howard🔸 that the risks and downsides of universal supplementation with potassium are very different from folate due particularly to the potential to worsen hyperkalemiea (even by a touch) in certain groups of people.

Fortification is always a tough sell as is, and in this case with almost certain (if small) downsides in this case it might be almost impossible to implement even with net benefit.

Thx for sharing! Interesting calculation. I did one by myself (with perplexity) and landed at costs of roundabout 500000 Euros per avoided death (50 DALYs). But i can‘t remember all my assumptions which i put in there. One Killer/argument might be: potassium salt and and anti-blood-pressure medication might be some kind of substitutes. So that more potassium salt might sometimes simply lead to less medication instesd of lowering the risk? My inspiration for doing my back-on-the-envelope-calculation where: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26234940-100-how-to-easily-satisfy-your-salt-cravings-without-damaging-your-health/ The article is behind a paywall, but i will send you a working link. Thx for this calculation!

Just to check—is the 230mg target additive to sodium, or substitutive? I can imagine the interventions would look different if we merely had to fortify food vs start replacing sodium.

In general, I’m hugely in favour of EA considering this (and similar interventions like mandating/favouring sugar substitution). Health issues that face rich countries today are likely already facing poor countries in large quantities and will only get relatively worse as we solve other problems.

You'll be interested to note that EA has already been considering this for a while, e.g. CEARCH's deep report on preventing hypertension via advocacy for top sodium reduction policies and controlling diabetes mellitus type 2 via advocacy for sugar-sweetened beverages taxes, Founders Pledge's recommendation of the Resolve to Save Lives program to eliminate industrially-produced trans fat, GiveWell's 2019 conversation with Action on Salt as part of its investigation into sodium reduction policy in LMICs (including the country I'm from), etc.

I misread:

It'd depend on the food in question. The analysis however was under the assumption of it being additive, i.e. typical fortification.

I'm not a baker or a cow farmer so I don't know in what situations salt can be replaced with potassium chloride. I think in a lot of cases potassium chloride should be able to be added with limited issues as saltier things tend to taste better.

[comment deleted]1
0
0
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Recent opportunities in Forecasting
20
Eva
· · 1m read