Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Sep 9;16(9):e0256926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256926

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease thresholds for statin initiation among people living with HIV in Thailand: A cost-effectiveness analysis

David C Boettiger 1,2,3,‡,*, Pairoj Chattranukulchai 4,, Anchalee Avihingsanon 5, Romanee Chaiwarith 6, Suwimon Khusuwan 7, Matthew G Law 1, Jeremy Ross 8, Sasisopin Kiertiburanakul 9
Editor: Ismaeel Yunusa10
PMCID: PMC8428548  PMID: 34499685

Abstract

Background

People living with HIV (PLHIV) have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared to their uninfected peers. Expanding statin use may help alleviate this burden. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of reducing the recommend statin initiation threshold for primary ASCVD prevention among PLHIV in Thailand.

Methods

Our decision analytic microsimulation model randomly selected (with replacement) individuals from the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database (data collected between 1/January/2013 and 1/September/2019). Direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years were assigned in annual cycles over a lifetime horizon and discounted at 3% per year. We assumed the Thai healthcare sector perspective. The study population included PLHIV aged 35–75 years, without ASCVD, and receiving antiretroviral therapy. Statin initiation thresholds evaluated were 10-year ASCVD risk ≥10% (control), ≥7.5% and ≥5%.

Results

A statin initiation threshold of ASCVD risk ≥7.5% resulted in accumulation of 0.015 additional quality-adjusted life-years compared with an ASCVD risk threshold ≥10%, at an extra cost of 3,539 Baht ($US113), giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 239,000 Baht ($US7,670)/quality-adjusted life-year gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ASCVD risk ≥5% to ≥7.5% was 349,000 Baht ($US11,200)/quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 Baht ($US5,135)/quality-adjusted life-year gained, a 30.8% reduction in the average cost of low/moderate statin therapy led to the ASCVD risk threshold ≥7.5% becoming cost-effective compared with current practice.

Conclusions

Reducing the recommended 10-year ASCVD risk threshold for statin initiation among PLHIV in Thailand would not currently be cost-effective. However, a lower threshold could become cost-effective with greater preference for cheaper statins.

Introduction

People living with HIV (PLHIV) have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared to their uninfected peers [1]. Causes of this excess ASCVD risk are a poorly understood combination of immune deficiency, antiretroviral therapy (ART) use, co-infections such as hepatitis B and C, and lifestyle factors such as cigarette smoking and alcohol use [2].

Statins reduce ASCVD risk by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels [3]. It has also been hypothesized that the anti-inflammatory properties of statins, including reductions in soluble CD14, oxidized LDL-C, and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase 2 [4], may further reduce ASCVD risk in PLHIV [5]. Current Thai guidelines recommend statin therapy for primary ASCVD prevention among PLHIV with a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥10% [6], consistent with general population guidelines [7]. Reducing the risk threshold for statin initiation in PLHIV may help to alleviate their excess burden of ASCVD.

We recently reported that it would not be cost-effective to expand pravastatin or pitavastatin use to PLHIV in Thailand not currently on lipid-lowering therapy [8]. Pravastatin and pitavastatin are preferred statins in the context of HIV due to their lack of interaction with ART. However, many prescribers opt for cautious use of other statins due to their low cost. We therefore aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of lowering the recommended ASCVD risk threshold for statin initiation among PLHIV in Thailand, assuming current statin prescribing patterns.

Methods

Ethics statement

Ethics approval was granted for the TAHOD study design, methods and consent procedures by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC17825). Site specific study governance was granted by site-relevant institutional review boards: Ministry of Health National Ethics Committee for Health Research (Cambodia), Ethical Committee of Beijing Ditan Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University (China), Research Ethics Committee Kowloon Central / Kowloon East, Hospital Authority IRB (China), Institutional Review Board Of YRG CARE (India), Institutional Ethics Committee Rao Nursing Home (India), Kerti Praja Foundation IRB (Indonesia), Committee of Medical Research Ethics, Faculty of Medicine University of Indonesia (Indonesia), National Center for Global Health and Medicine Human Research Ethics Committee (Japan), Medical Research & Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health (for Sungai Buloh Hospital and Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II, Malaysia), Medical Ethics Committee, University Malaya Medical Centre (Malaysia), Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Department of Health (Philippines), National Healthcare Group IRB, Domain Specific Review Board (Singapore), Severance Hospital Yonsei University College of Medicine Institutional Review Board (South Korea), Institutional Review Board of Taipei Veterans General Hospital (Taiwan), The Internal Ethical Committee for Research in Human Subject, Chiangrai Prachanukroh Hospital (Thailand), Institutional Review Board Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University (Thailand), Committee on Human Rights Related to Research Involving Human Subjects Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University (Thailand), Research Ethics of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (Thailand), Siriraj Institutional Review Board, Mahidol University (Thailand), Ministry of Health, Hanoi School of Public Health IRB (Vietnam), and National Hospital of Tropical Diseases IRB (Vietnam).

Written informed consent was not sought in TAHOD unless required by a site’s local institutional review board. The need for written consent was waived by the following ethics committees: Ministry of Health National Ethics Committee for Health Research (Cambodia), Ethical Committee of Beijing Ditan Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University (China), Research Ethics Committee Kowloon Central / Kowloon East, Hospital Authority IRB (China), Institutional Review Board Of YRG CARE (India), Institutional Ethics Committee Rao Nursing Home (India), Kerti Praja Foundation IRB (Indonesia), Committee of Medical Research Ethics, Faculty of Medicine University of Indonesia (Indonesia), Medical Research & Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health (for Sungai Buloh Hospital, Malaysia), Medical Ethics Committee, University Malaya Medical Centre (Malaysia), The Internal Ethical Committee for Research in Human Subject, Chiangrai Prachanukroh Hospital (Thailand), Ministry of Health, Hanoi School of Public Health IRB (Vietnam), and National Hospital of Tropical Diseases IRB (Vietnam).

Study population

We used individual, de-identified patient data from Thai sites contributing to the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database (TAHOD). TAHOD involves 21 HIV clinics in the Asia-Pacific region and is part of the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS collaboration [9]. Ethics approval was granted by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC17825). Clinics follow local guidelines and regulations regarding patient consent and ethics review (see Ethics statement in Acknowledgements). The study population was selected from patients enrolled at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok; HIV-NAT Research Collaboration/Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre, Bangkok; Research Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai; or Chiangrai Prachanukroh Hospital, Chiang Rai. Included patients were required to have documentation of ≥1 visit between 1 January 2013 and 1 September 2019 and, at their last clinic visit, be aged 35–75 years, have no history of ASCVD, have been using ART for at least 6 months, and have a CD4 cell count >100 cells/mm3. S1 Table in S1 File further characterizes the PLHIV in our study population.

Model structure, parameterization and validation

We developed a microsimulation model that randomly selected (with replacement) 100,000 patients from our study population (N = 1,379). The model simulated their probability of ASCVD over time. Direct medical costs and outcomes were assigned in annual cycles over a lifetime horizon and discounted at 3% per year [10]. We assumed the Thai healthcare sector perspective. Primary ASCVD risk was calculated using the reduced Data-collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs (D:A:D) CVD risk equation [11]. Background mortality rates were based on those of the Asian population on ART [12]. Recurrent event rates were modelled as per our earlier analysis evaluating pravastatin and pitavastatin expansion [8]. Further detail on the model is provided in the Supplementary Material, including S1 Fig in S1 File which presents a schematic of the model structure. Model parameters are shown in Table 1. We calibrated our model using a goodness-of-fit approach based on the observed rates of all-cause and cardiovascular death among TAHOD participants between 2009 and 2019. Fig 1 shows that our calibrated model estimates provided an accurate reflection of the observed data.

Table 1. Key model parameters.

Parameter Base case (range for sensitivity) Source
Probabilities    
Probability of ASCVD event Varies by individual based on D:A:D equationa [11]
Probability of non-CVD death Varies by age, sex and CD4b [12]
Statin efficacy    
Reduction in LDL-C associated with high intensity statin, % 55.0 (50.0–60.0) [3,13]
Reduction in LDL-C associated with low-moderate intensity statin, % 40.0 (25.0–49.0) [3,13]
Statin adherence Varies by duration of statin use (+/- 15% of base-case) [14]
Costs, 2018 Thai Baht    
HIV management 59,856 (29,929–89,784) [15,16]
Non-fatal T1MI medical managementb 35,441 (17,721–53,162) [17]
PCIb 215,765 (107,882–323,647) [17]
CABGb 316,475 (158,238–474,714) [17]
Non-fatal T1MI management—First year post-T1MIb 62,245 (34,974–143,252) [18]
Non-fatal T1MI management—After first year post-T1MIb 17,780 (8,890–26,670) [18]
Fatal T1MIb 221,915 (81,878–356,072) [18]
Non-fatal ischemic stroke hospitalizationb 26,668 (23,497–29,820) [19,20]
Non-fatal ischemic stroke management—First year post-strokeb 42,435 (39,284–45,587) [19,20]
Non-fatal ischemic stroke management—After first year post-strokeb 10,932 (8,746–13,119) [19]
Fatal ischemic strokeb 54,671 (43,737–65,606) [19]
Non-fatal hemorrhagic stroke hospitalizationb 26,668 (23,497–29,820)c Assumption
Non-fatal hemorrhagic stroke management—First year post-strokeb 42,435 (39,284–45,587)c Assumption
Non-fatal hemorrhagic stroke management—After first year post-strokeb 10,932 (8,746–13,119)c Assumption
Fatal hemorrhagic strokeb 54,671 (43,737–65,606)c Assumption
Other cardiovascular deathb 221,915 (81,878–356,072)d Assumption
Statin-associated diabetes, average cost/individual taking statin/yearb 2.30 (1.70–3.70) [21,22]
Statin-associated myopathy, average cost/individual taking statin/yearb 0.05 (0.02–0.08) [23,24]
High intensity statin, 12-month supply 9,486 (4,743–14,229) [25] and site surveye
Low/moderate intensity statin, 12-month supply 2,301 (1,151–3,452) [25] and site surveye
Utility weights    
No history of CVD 1.0000 Assumption
History of T1MIb 0.7780 (0.6613–0.9758) [2629]
History of ischemic strokeb 0.7680 (0.6528–0.9108) [2629]
History of hemorrhagic strokeb 0.6100 (0.4000–0.8000) [30]
Quality-of-life decrements    
PCIb 0.0061 (0.0040–0.0087) [31]
CABGb 0.0128 (0.0084–0.0184) [31]
Acute T1MIb 0.0076 (0.0051–0.0106) [31]
Acute ischemic strokeb 0.0242 (0.0158–0.0335) [31]
Acute hemorrhagic strokeb 0.0242 (0.0158–0.0335) [31]
Diabetes, average quality-of-life decrement/individual taking statin/yearb 0.00005 (0.00003–0.00007) [22,31]
Myopathy, average quality-of-life decrement/individual taking statin/yearb 0.0000010 (0.0000007–0.0000012) [23,31]
Daily statin administration/pill burdenb 0.00000 (0.00000–0.00384) [32]
Discounting and time horizon    
Annual discount rate, % (applied to costs and benefits) 3.0 (0.0–5.0) [10]
Time horizon Lifetime [10]

Baht can be converted to $US by dividing by 31.16

a D:A:D equation uses age, sex, diabetes status, family history of CVD, current and past smoking status, total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and CD4 cell count to calculate CVD risk

b Based on general population or high-income setting

c As for ischemic stroke hospitalization/management

d As for fatal T1MI. ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

e Statin costs were estimated based on published unit costs and a survey of statin use among people living with HIV on antiretroviral therapy at sites contributing to our study population. D:A:D, Data-collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs study; LDL-C, low density lipoprotein cholesterol; T1MI, type 1 myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft.

Fig 1. Observed versus modelled probability of all-cause and cardiovascular death over time.

Fig 1

Observed data is from Thai sites in the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database (TAHOD). Shaded area is 95% confidence interval for observed data.

Treatment strategies

Current Thai guidelines recommend PLHIV with an LDL-C level ≥190mg/dL, those aged ≥40 years with diabetes, and those aged ≥50 years with chronic kidney disease and an LDL-C level ≥100mg/dL should be started on a statin regardless of ASCVD risk score [6,7]. For those who do not meet these criteria, statin therapy is recommended if their 10-year ASCVD risk is ≥10%. Individuals with an ASCVD score <10% may be considered for statin therapy if there is evidence of subclinical atherosclerosis but such information is rarely available in routine practice in Thailand. Consistent with Thai guidelines, we assumed all individuals with an LDL-C level ≥190mg/dL would be prescribed high intensity statin therapy, and those with a statin indication associated with diabetes or chronic kidney disease would be prescribed low/moderate intensity statin therapy. We evaluated three different treatment strategies for individuals who currently require an ASCVD risk score to determine statin eligibility: 1) treating those with a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥10% with a low/moderate intensity statin (control group); 2) treating those with a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5% with a low/moderate intensity statin; and 3) treating those with a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥5% with a low/moderate intensity statin.

We modelled the effectiveness of statins through the simulated change in LDL-C. We assumed fully adherent individuals using high intensity and low/moderate intensity statins would achieve LDL-C reductions of 55% and 40%, respectively [3,13]. Statin adherence was assumed to be 86.7% in the first year of statin use, 72.6% in the second, 61.1% in the third, 56.6% in the fourth, and 58.1% in all years thereafter [14]. We assumed PLHIV would only accrue the cost of statin use, exhibit side effects of statins, and benefit from statin LDL-C cholesterol reduction while they were using a statin and hence these parameters were adjusted in line with the decline in adherence over time.

We assumed statin therapy only reduced ASCVD risk by improving LDL-C levels. In scenario analyses, we assumed additional ASCVD preventative efficacy to account for the possibility that the anti-inflammatory properties of statins provide additional benefit in PLHIV [5]. We assumed statins do not prevent non-ASCVD events as current evidence suggests little or no benefit for such outcomes [33]. We modelled adverse events related to statin use (hemorrhagic stroke, diabetes, and myopathy) based on rates observed in the general population (see Table 1 and Supplementary Material in S1 File). We did not account for differences in statin type or dose as current evidence suggests these factors have little impact on the type or frequency of adverse events observed [34].

Cost and quality-of-life estimates

Health-related costs and quality-of-life adjustments were assigned to clinical events and health states in annual cycles. We included medical costs regardless of who paid for them. Cost estimates from earlier years were inflated to 2018 Thai Baht equivalents [35]. The cost of HIV management and rates of second-line ART use were based on published literature [15,16]. Statin costs were estimated based on unit costs [25] and a survey of statin use among PLHIV on ART at the Thai TAHOD sites contributing to our study population. S4 Table in S1 File provides a breakdown of how we arrived at the average annual costs for low/moderate and high intensity statin use (2,301 Baht [$US74] and 9,486 Baht [$US304], respectively). Other costs were based on published estimates for the general population (see Table 1). Quality-of-life adjustments were largely based on data from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study [31]. Since patients using ART already take at least one daily pill, our base-case model assumed the inconvenience of taking a daily statin (pill burden) was not associated with a quality-of-life decrement. Earlier studies among the HIV and general populations have also assumed regular statin use is not associated with a pill burden [8,32,36].

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The threshold for an intervention being considered cost-effective (willingness-to-pay threshold) was as an ICER below 160,000 Baht ($US5,315). This is consistent with recommendations from the Thai Ministry of Public Health [37].

Scenario analyses

In addition to our base-case analyses, we investigated the following scenarios:

  1. Assuming statins reduce ASCVD event probability an additional 15% to account for the possibility that their anti-inflammatory properties provide additional benefit among PLHIV;

  2. As above but assuming statins reduce ASCVD event probability an additional 30%;

  3. Using the Rama-EGAT equation to calculate T1MI and ischemic stroke risk. The Rama-EGAT equation [38] has been validated in the general Thai population [39] and is a reasonable alternative to the D:A:D equation.

Sensitivity analyses

We used sensitivity analyses to evaluate whether our results were impacted by uncertainty in key input parameters. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, we varied one or two input parameters at a time. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses we varied multiple input parameters simultaneously across prespecified distributions over 1,000 iterations. We used beta distributions for utilities and event probabilities, and log-normal distributions for hazard ratios, safety and efficacy measures, and costs.

Software

Data management and statistical analysis was conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina). Modelling was undertaken in TreeAge Pro 2020 Version R1.0 (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, Massachusetts).

Results

Base-case analysis

Modelled incidence rates for T1MI, ischemic stroke and fatal CVD among the ≥10% ASCVD risk threshold group were 6.91, 3.06 and 3.58 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Individuals in this group were projected to accumulate a discounted average of 22.268 QALYs, 22.587 life-years and 1,446,067 Baht ($US46,407) in direct medical costs (Table 2).

Table 2. Incremental cost-effectiveness of different statin initiation thresholds for primary prevention of ASCVD among PLHIV.

Intervention Total cost, Baht Statin cost, Baht T1MIa Ischemic strokea Fatal CVDa Life-years QALYs Incremental cost, Baht Incremental life-years gained Incremental QALYs gained Baht/life-year gainedb ICER, Baht/QALY gainedb
Base-case                        
≥10% ASCVD risk 1,446,067 46,095 6.91 3.06 3.58 22.587 22.268 - - - - -
≥7.5% ASCVD risk 1,449,606 49,910 6.85 3.02 3.55 22.595 22.283 3,539 0.007 0.015 476,000 239,000
≥5% ASCVD risk 1,454,987 55,155 6.82 3.00 3.52 22.608 22.298 5,381 0.013 0.015 417,000 349,000
Scenario 1) Statins reduce ASCVD risk an additional 15% due to anti-inflammatory effects 
≥10% ASCVD risk 1,445,713 46,377 6.58 2.83 3.42 22.619 22.314 - - - - -
≥7.5% ASCVD risk 1,449,144 50,191 6.52 2.79 3.40 22.627 22.329 3,431 0.008 0.015 450,000 231,000
≥5% ASCVD risk 1,454,566 55,448 6.49 2.75 3.36 22.641 22.347 5,422 0.014 0.018 381,000 299,000
Scenario 2) Statins reduce ASCVD risk an additional 30% due to anti-inflammatory effects 
≥10% ASCVD risk 1,445,200 46,693 6.02 2.68 3.21 22.649 22.361 - - - - -
≥7.5% ASCVD risk 1,448,858 50,521 5.96 2.62 3.17 22.662 22.381 3,658 0.013 0.021 286,000 177,000
≥5% ASCVD risk 1,454,103 55,794 5.91 2.59 3.14 22.677 22.402 5,245 0.016 0.020 336,000 256,000
Scenario 3) Using Rama-EGAT equation 
≥10% ASCVD risk 1,459,913 52,768 8.36 3.69 4.03 22.584 22.216 - - - - -
≥7.5% ASCVD risk 1,462,771 55,434 8.33 3.69 4.01 22.593 22.226 2,858 0.009 0.011 307,000 272,000
≥5% ASCVD risk 1,466,379 58,934 8.34 3.68 4.00 22.599 22.235 3,608 0.006 0.009 566,000 424,000

Incremental cost-effectiveness for each strategy was measured relative to the next best strategy in terms of QALYs gained. Costs, QALYs, and life-years were discounted at 3%/year. Baht can be converted to $US by dividing by 31.16; T1MI, type 1 myocardial infarction; ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; Rama-EGAT, Ramathibodi-Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand.

a per 1,000 person-years

b Rounded to nearest thousand.

Compared with the ≥10% ASCVD risk threshold group, reductions in the incidence of T1MI, ischemic stroke and fatal CVD were projected to be 0.9%, 1.3% and 0.7%, respectively, in the ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold group. These reductions contributed to the accumulation of 0.015 additional QALYs at an incremental cost of 3,539 Baht ($US113), giving an ICER of 239,000 Baht ($US7,670)/QALY gained. Compared with the ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold group, reductions in the incidence of T1MI, ischemic stroke and fatal CVD were projected to be 0.4%, 0.8% and 0.8%, respectively, in the ≥5% ASCVD risk threshold group. These reductions contributed to the accumulation of 0.015 additional QALYs at an incremental cost of 5,381 Baht ($US172), giving an ICER of 349,000 Baht ($US11,200)/QALY gained (Table 2).

Scenario analyses

Our scenario analyses results are shown in Table 2. Assuming statins reduce ASCVD risk an additional 15% due to their anti-inflammatory effects (Scenario 1) reduced the ICERs for both the ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold versus the ≥10% ASCVD risk threshold (231,000 Baht [$US7,413]/QALY gained), and for the ≥5% ASCVD risk threshold versus the ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold (299,000 Baht [$US9,595]/QALY gained). Assuming statins reduce ASCVD risk an additional 30% due to their anti-inflammatory effects (Scenario 2) further reduced the respective ICERs: 177,000 Baht ($US5,680)/QALY gained and 256,000 Baht ($US8,215)/QALY gained. When replacing the D:A:D equation with the Rama-EGAT equation to estimate ASCVD risk (Scenario 3), our model predicted higher incidence rates of T1MI, ischemic stroke and fatal CVD. The ICERs were 272,000 Baht ($US8,729)/QALY gained for the ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold versus the ≥10% ASCVD risk threshold, and 424,000 Baht ($US13,607)/QALY gained for the ≥5% ASCVD risk threshold versus the ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold.

Sensitivity analyses

One-way sensitivity analysis results are presented in Fig 2 (≥7.5% versus ≥10% ASCVD risk threshold) and S2 Fig in S1 File (≥5% versus ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold). Our findings were sensitive to changes in the annual cost of low/moderate intensity statin therapy, the pill burden associated with daily statin use, and the discount rate.

Fig 2. Tornado plot showing impact of changes in model parameters on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for statin initiation threshold ≥7.5% ASCVD risk versus ≥10% ASCVD risk.

Fig 2

Shading of bars indicates directionality: Lighter bars represent the smaller values in the sensitivity range and darker bars indicate the larger values. Directionality also indicated by the order of values shown in the text description. Cost-effectiveness based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 Baht/QALY gained. Baht can be converted to $US by dividing by 31.16. ASCVD, cardiovascular disease; LDL-C, low density lipoprotein cholesterol; T1MI, type 1 myocardial infarction; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 Baht ($US5,315)/QALY gained, the ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold became cost-effective compared to the ≥10% ASCVD risk threshold when the average annual cost of low/moderate intensity statin dropped to 1,593 Baht ($US51; 69.2% of base-case price). This price drop could be achieved if we assumed 54% of moderate intensity atorvastatin users were instead using an equivalent dose of simvastatin (i.e., 10mg atorvastatin to 20mg simvastatin, and 20mg atorvastatin to 40mg simvastatin). Given a shift in prescribing preference to simvastatin may be possible with a shift in prescribing from protease inhibitors to integrase inhibitors, we also evaluated the price drop required for low/moderate intensity statins in the context of higher costs for HIV treatment. Assuming the maximum annual cost of HIV management from our sensitivity range (89,784 Baht; $US2,881), the ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold became cost-effective compared to the ≥10% ASCVD risk threshold when the average annual cost of low/moderate intensity statin dropped to 1,459 Baht ($US47; 63.4% of base-case price). This price drop could be achieved if we assumed 64% of moderate intensity atorvastatin users were instead using an equivalent dose of simvastatin.

When the probability of ASCVD while using a statin was reduced by 30% to account for the possibility of preventative efficacy in PLHIV beyond that associated with cholesterol improvement, the ≥7.5% ASCVD risk threshold became cost-effective compared to the ≥10% ASCVD risk threshold if the average annual cost of low/moderate intensity statin use dropped to 2,085 Baht ($US66; 90.6% of base-case price).

In our base-case, we assumed that pill burden associated with daily statin use was not associated with any quality-of-life decrement. When a negative quality-of-life impact was assumed, the average number of QALYs accumulated declined with all three strategies but more so among the lower threshold strategies. At the high end of our sensitivity range, the expanded statin use strategies generated incremental QALY gains of 0.008 (ASCVD risk threshold ≥7.5% versus ≥10%) and 0.007 (ASCVD risk threshold ≥5% versus ≥7.5%) resulting in ICERs of 420,000 Baht ($US13,478)/QALY gained and 808,000 Baht ($US25,930)/QALY gained, respectively.

In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the ASCVD risk threshold ≥10% was optimal in 96.9% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay of 160,000 Baht ($US5,135)/QALY gained, the ASCVD risk threshold ≥7.5% was optimal in 3.0% of simulations, and the ASCVD risk threshold ≥5% was optimal in 0.1% of simulations (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Acceptability curves showing proportion of probability sensitivity analysis simulations cost-effective for each intervention under different assumptions of willingness-to-pay.

Fig 3

Dashed vertical line represents willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 Baht/QALY gained. Baht can be converted to $US by dividing by 31.16. ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.

Discussion

Reducing the ASCVD risk threshold for statin initiation would help reduce the excess risk of ASCVD among PLHIV in Thailand. However, we estimated that it would not currently be cost-effective. Our results were sensitive to changes in statin cost but remained stable across a broad range of other sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Earlier results from Thailand and other resource-limited settings have shown statins to be an economically attractive option for primary prevention of ASCVD in the general population [19,40] However, these studies compared treatment strategies with a greater difference in efficacy than our study. For example, Tamteerano et al [19] compared statin use at various risk thresholds to a control group with no statin use. There are several other reasons our results may differ from findings in the general population: 1) there are more events competing with ASCVD in PLHIV compared with the general population [41,42]. Hence, preventing ASCVD among PLHIV results in fewer QALYs gained in comparison with preventing ASCVD in the general population; 2) background costs in PLHIV are higher than in the general population; and 3) general population studies can assume a lower cost of statin use because of the low potential for drug interactions among the general population.

Given simvastatin should not be co-administered with protease inhibitors but is safe to use with most other ART classes, reduced use of protease inhibitors is likely to stimulate greater use of simvastatin. Protease inhibitors remain in common use in Thailand (13.9% of our cohort was using a protease inhibitor), although there is strong interest towards phasing in better tolerated ART in low and middle income countries [43]. Our sensitivity analyses indicated that, in the context of increased HIV management costs, the ASCVD risk threshold ≥7.5% for statin initiation would become cost-effective if 64% of moderate intensity atorvastatin users were assumed to be using an equivalent dose of simvastatin instead. In a recent analysis of statin users at the HIV-NAT Research Collaboration/Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre in Bangkok, 57% of moderate intensity atorvastatin users were on protease inhibitor-based ART [14]. Therefore, replacing protease inhibitor-based ART and moderate intensity atorvastatin use with non-protease inhibitor-based ART and moderate intensity simvastatin could be sufficient to make the ASCVD risk threshold ≥7.5% cost-effective.

QALY gains in the intervention groups declined substantially when we included a small decrement in quality-of-life associated with taking a daily statin. Similarly, when a small pill burden was included in our earlier analysis of pravastatin and pitavastatin expansion, the QALY gains compared with no statin rapidly declined [8]. Current estimates of quality-of-life decrement associated with pill burden vary substantially [44,45]. However, for PLHIV, the burden of taking an additional pill along with daily ART is likely to be close to negligible.

Statin therapy typically leads to a 15–20% reduction in major ASCVD events [3]. Although, the anti-inflammatory properties of statins may increase their efficacy in PLHIV. The Randomized Trial to Prevent Vascular Events in HIV (REPRIEVE) study is currently investigating pitavastatin for the primary prevention of ASCVD in PLHIV [46]. While the results of this trial are highly anticipated, we have shown that, even if there was an additional 30% decrease in the probability of ASCVD with statin use in PLHIV, the current cost of low/moderate intensity statin use would still need to drop by 9.4% before it became cost-effective to reduce the ASCVD risk initiation threshold.

There are some limitations to this study. An analysis of the HIV Outpatient Study [47] indicated that the D:A:D equation underestimates ASCVD risk in PLHIV. However, the HIV Outpatient Study underestimates the prevalence of ASCVD family history which is an important contributor to ASCVD risk in the D:A:D equation. We also found that our main conclusions were not altered when we used the Rama-EGAT equation to calculate T1MI and stroke risk. We approximated various model parameters using data from the general population or from high income settings. It is possible these parameters differ between the general population and PLHIV, or between high income settings and the Thai healthcare setting. However, our sensitivity analyses suggested that this would not impact our main findings. Finally, we were not able to adjust for the possible difference in ASCVD risk associated with new antiretrovirals relative to older antiretrovirals as it is not currently known.

Conclusions

Reducing the recommended 10-year ASCVD risk threshold for statin initiation among PLHIV in Thailand would not currently be cost-effective, even if statins exhibit greater efficacy in PLHIV due to their anti-inflammatory properties. A lower threshold could become cost-effective with greater preference for simvastatin.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database participants and Steering Committee.

TAHOD study members

PS Ly*, V Khol, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Dermatology & STDs, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; FJ Zhang*, HX Zhao, N Han, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China; MP Lee*, PCK Li, TS Kwong, HY Wong, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong SAR; N Kumarasamy*, C Ezhilarasi, Chennai Antiviral Research and Treatment Clinical Research Site (CART CRS), VHS-Infectious Diseases Medical Centre, VHS, Chennai, India; S Pujari*, K Joshi, S Gaikwad, A Chitalikar, Institute of Infectious Diseases, Pune, India; S Sangle*, V Mave, I Marbaniang, S Nimkar, BJ Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, India; TP Merati*, DN Wirawan, F Yuliana, Faculty of Medicine Udayana University & Sanglah Hospital, Bali, Indonesia; E Yunihastuti*, A Widhani, S Maria, TH Karjadi, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia—Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia; J Tanuma*, S Oka, T Nishijima, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan; JY Choi*, Na S, JM Kim, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; YM Gani*, NB Rudi, Hospital Sungai Buloh, Sungai Buloh, Malaysia; I Azwa*, A Kamarulzaman, SF Syed Omar, S Ponnampalavanar, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; R Ditangco*, MK Pasayan, ML Mationg, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Philippines;

YJ Chan*, WW Ku, PC Wu, E Ke, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan;

OT Ng*, PL Lim, LS Lee, D Liang, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore (note: OT Ng is also supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s (MOH) National Medical Research Council (NMRC) Clinician Scientist Award (MOH-000276). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of MOH/NMRC.); A Avihingsanon*, S Gatechompol, P Phanuphak, C Phadungphon, HIV-NAT/Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre, Bangkok, Thailand; S Kiertiburanakul*, A Phuphuakrat, L Chumla, N Sanmeema, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; R Chaiwarith*, T Sirisanthana, J Praparattanapan, K Nuket, Chiang Mai University—Research Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai, Thailand; S Khusuwan*, P Kantipong, P Kambua, Chiangrai Prachanukroh Hospital, Chiang Rai, Thailand; KV Nguyen*, HV Bui, DTH Nguyen, DT Nguyen, National Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Hanoi, Vietnam; CD Do*, AV Ngo, LT Nguyen, Bach Mai Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam;

AH Sohn*, JL Ross*, B Petersen, TREAT Asia, amfAR—The Foundation for AIDS Research, Bangkok, Thailand; MG Law*, A Jiamsakul*, R Bijker, D Rupasinghe, The Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney, NSW, Australia. (* TAHOD Steering Committee member)

Abbreviations

ART

Antiretroviral therapy

ASCVD

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

CABG

Coronary artery bypass graft

D:A:D

Data-collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs

ICER

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

LDL-C

Low density lipoprotein cholesterol

PCI

Percutaneous coronary intervention

PLHIV

People living with HIV

QALY

Quality-adjusted life-year

Rama-EGAT

Ramathibodi-Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand

T1MI

Myocardial infarction

TAHOD

TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database

Data Availability

These data were collected as part of a regional cohort collaboration. The cohort collaboration has data-sharing policies that were approved by the corresponding IRB and specify that both internal and external investigators are subject to a formal process to request access to the data through submission of a concept sheet that adheres to these policies. This study was conducted under these policies, and data will only be available upon request for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Interested individuals should contact Boondarika Petersen (tor.nakornsri@treatasia.org).

Funding Statement

No funding was received for the modelling analysis presented. The TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database is an initiative of TREAT Asia, a programme of amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, with support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the Fogarty International Center, as part of the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA; U01AI069907). The Kirby Institute (data center for the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database) is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, and is affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of any of the governments or institutions mentioned above.

References

  • 1.Shah ASV, Stelzle D, Lee KK, Beck EJ, Alam S, Clifford S, et al. Global Burden of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in People Living With HIV. Circulation 2018; 138(11):1100–1112. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.033369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Freiberg MS, So-Armah K. HIV and Cardiovascular Disease: We Need a Mechanism, and We Need a Plan. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 4(3):e003411. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaborators. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet 2012; 380(9841):581–590. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60367-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Toribio M, Fitch KV, Sanchez L, Burdo TH, Williams KC, Sponseller CA, et al. Effects of pitavastatin and pravastatin on markers of immune activation and arterial inflammation in HIV. Aids 2017; 31(6):797–806. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Eckard AR, Meissner EG, Singh I, McComsey GA. Cardiovascular Disease, Statins, and HIV. The Journal of infectious diseases 2016; 214Suppl 2:S83–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Thai AIDS Society. Thailand National Guidelines on HIV/AIDS Treatment and Prevention 2017. Available at: http://www.thaiaidssociety.org/images/PDF/hiv_thai_guideline_2560.pdf (accessed 10 July 2019).
  • 7.The Heart Association of Thailand. 2016 RCPT Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacologic Therapy of Dyslipidemia for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Prevention. Available at: http://www.thaiheart.org/Download/2016-RCPT-Dyslipidemia-Guideline.html (accessed 29 May 2020).
  • 8.Boettiger DC, Newall AT, Chattranukulchai P, Chaiwarith R, Khusuwan S, Avihingsanon A, et al. Statins for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention in people living with HIV in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2020; 23Suppl 1:e25494. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhou J, Kumarasamy N, Ditangco R, Kamarulzaman A, Lee CK, Li PC, et al. The TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database: baseline and retrospective data. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes 2005; 38(2):174–179. doi: 10.1097/01.qai.0000145351.96815.d5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 2016; 316(10):1093–1103. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Friis-Moller N, Ryom L, Smith C, Weber R, Reiss P, Dabis F, et al. An updated prediction model of the global risk of cardiovascular disease in HIV-positive persons: The Data-collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs (D:A:D) study. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016; 23(2):214–223. doi: 10.1177/2047487315579291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Anderegg N, Johnson LF, Zaniewski E, Althoff KN, Balestre E, Law M, et al. All-cause mortality in HIV-positive adults starting combination antiretroviral therapy: correcting for loss to follow-up. Aids 2017; 31Suppl 1:S31–S40. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, Beam C, Birtcher KK, Blumenthal RS, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73(24):e285–e350. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Boettiger DC, Kerr S, Chattranukulchai P, Siwamogsatham S, Avihingsanon A. Maintenance of statin therapy among people living with HIV. Aids 2020; (in press; ). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Over M, Revenga A, Masaki E, Peerapatanapokin W, Gold J, Tangcharoensathien V, et al. The economics of effective AIDS treatment in Thailand. Aids 2007; 21Suppl 4:S105–116. doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000279713.39675.1c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Boettiger DC, Nguyen VK, Durier N, Bui HV, Heng Sim BL, Azwa I, et al. Efficacy of second-line antiretroviral therapy among people living with HIV/AIDS in Asia: results from the TREAT Asia HIV observational database. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes 2015; 68(2):186–195. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Moleerergpoom W, Kanjanavanit R, Jintapakorn W, Sritara P. Costs of payment in Thai acute coronary syndrome patients. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet 2007; 90Suppl 1:21–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Anukoolsawat P, Sritara P, Teerawattananon Y. Costs of Lifetime Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome at Ramathibodi Hospital. Thai Heart Journal 2006; 19:132–143. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tamteerano Y, Khonputsa P, Teerawattananon Y, Chaikledkaew U. Economic evaluation of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statin) for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases among Thai population (in Thai language). Available at: http://www.hitap.net/en/research/17624 with username and password (accessed 01 Aug 2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jarungsuccess S, Taerakun S. Cost-utility analysis of oral anticoagulants for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients at the police general hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Clin Ther 2014; 36(10):1389–1394 e1384. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chatterjee S, Riewpaiboon A, Piyauthakit P, Riewpaiboon W, Boupaijit K, Panpuwong N, et al. Cost of diabetes and its complications in Thailand: a complete picture of economic burden. Health Soc Care Community 2011; 19(3):289–298. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2010.00981.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sattar N, Preiss D, Murray HM, Welsh P, Buckley BM, de Craen AJ, et al. Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials. Lancet 2010; 375(9716):735–742. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61965-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, Bairey Merz CN, Blum CB, Eckel RH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63(25 Pt B):2889–2934. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.WHO. CHOosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE)—Thailand. Available at: https://www.who.int/choice/country/tha/cost/en/ (accessed 30 Jul 2019).
  • 25.National Drug System Development Committee. Royal Thai Government Gazette—National Drug Prices, 2018. Available at: http://www.dmsic.moph.go.th/dmsic/force_down.php?f_id=735 (accessed 1 Jul 2019).
  • 26.Moran AE, Forouzanfar MH, Roth GA, Mensah GA, Ezzati M, Flaxman A, et al. The global burden of ischemic heart disease in 1990 and 2010: the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Circulation 2014; 129(14):1493–1501. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.004046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Moran AE, Forouzanfar MH, Roth GA, Mensah GA, Ezzati M, Murray CJ, et al. Temporal trends in ischemic heart disease mortality in 21 world regions, 1980 to 2010: the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Circulation 2014; 129(14):1483–1492. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.004042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Flaxman AD, Michaud C, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380(9859):2197–2223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making 2006; 26(4):410–420. doi: 10.1177/0272989X06290495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kazi DS, Garber AM, Shah RU, Dudley RA, Mell MW, Rhee C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided and dual antiplatelet therapies in acute coronary syndrome. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160(4):221–232. doi: 10.7326/M13-1999 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Global Burden of Disease Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018; 392(10159):1789–1858. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Heller DJ, Coxson PG, Penko J, Pletcher MJ, Goldman L, Odden MC, et al. Evaluating the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Statin Use Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke. Circulation 2017; 136(12):1087–1098. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.027067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.He Y, Li X, Gasevic D, Brunt E, McLachlan F, Millenson M, et al. Statins and Multiple Noncardiovascular Outcomes: Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169(8):543–553. doi: 10.7326/M18-0808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ramkumar S, Raghunath A, Raghunath S. Statin Therapy: Review of Safety and Potential Side Effects. Acta Cardiol Sin 2016; 32(6):631–639. doi: 10.6515/acs20160611a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.World Bank. GDP deflator. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.ZS?locations=TH (accessed 28 Jul 2019).
  • 36.Boettiger DC, Newall AT, Phillips A, Bendavid E, Law MG, Ryom L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of statins for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease among people living with HIV in the United States. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2021; 24(3):e25690. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Schwarzer R, Rochau U, Saverno K, Jahn B, Bornschein B, Muehlberger N, et al. Systematic overview of cost-effectiveness thresholds in ten countries across four continents. J Comp Eff Res 2015; 4(5):485–504. doi: 10.2217/cer.15.38 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Vathesatogkit P, Woodward M, Tanomsup S, Ratanachaiwong W, Vanavanan S, Yamwong S, et al. Cohort profile: the electricity generating authority of Thailand study. Int J Epidemiol 2012; 41(2):359–365. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.S. P, Jongjirasiri S, Yamwong S, Laothammatas J, Sritara P. RAMA-EGAT Risk Score for Predicting Coronary Artery Disease Evaluated by 64- Slice CT Angiography. Asean Heart Journal 2007; 15:18–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ribeiro RA, Duncan BB, Ziegelmann PK, Stella SF, Vieira JL, Restelatto LM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of high, moderate and low-dose statins in the prevention of vascular events in the Brazilian public health system. Arq Bras Cardiol 2015; 104(1):32–44. doi: 10.5935/abc.20140173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC WONDER. Available at: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D76 (accessed 10 December 2018).
  • 42.Feinstein MJ, Bahiru E, Achenbach C, Longenecker CT, Hsue P, So-Armah K, et al. Patterns of Cardiovascular Mortality for HIV-Infected Adults in the United States: 1999 to 2013. Am J Cardiol 2016; 117(2):214–220. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.10.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dorward J, Lessells R, Drain PK, Naidoo K, de Oliveira T, Pillay Y, et al. Dolutegravir for first-line antiretroviral therapy in low-income and middle-income countries: uncertainties and opportunities for implementation and research. Lancet HIV 2018; 5(7):e400–e404. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(18)30093-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Fontana M, Asaria P, Moraldo M, Finegold J, Hassanally K, Manisty CH, et al. Patient-accessible tool for shared decision making in cardiovascular primary prevention: balancing longevity benefits against medication disutility. Circulation 2014; 129(24):2539–2546. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.007595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Pletcher MJ, Tice JA, Pignone M, Browner WS. Using the coronary artery calcium score to predict coronary heart disease events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of internal medicine 2004; 164(12):1285–1292. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.12.1285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gilbert JM, Fitch KV, Grinspoon SK. HIV-Related Cardiovascular Disease, Statins, and the REPRIEVE Trial. Top Antivir Med 2015; 23(4):146–149. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Thompson-Paul AM, Lichtenstein KA, Armon C, Palella FJ Jr., Skarbinski J, Chmiel JS, et al. Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction in the HIV Outpatient Study. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63(11):1508–1516. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ismaeel Yunusa

14 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-09045

When to start statins for people living with HIV in Thailand: A cost-effectiveness analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boettiger,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ismaeel Yunusa, PharmD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published work, of which you are an author.

- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jia2.25494

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"DCB has received research funding from Gilead Sciences and is supported by a

National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship

(APP1140503); MGL has received unrestricted grants from Boehringer Ingelhiem,

Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, and

ViiV HealthCare and consultancy fees from Gilead Sciences and data and safety

monitoring board sitting fees from Sirtex Pty Ltd; All other authors report no potential

competing interests."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please revise the manuscript by carefully considering points raised by the reviewers. Ensure the revised version also follows CHEERS reporting guidelines and re-attach the CHEERS checklist while submitting the updated manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study is a cost-effectiveness analysis of different thresholds of 10-year ASCVD risk for initiating statin use among people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Thailand. Using a microsimulation model, the authors estimated that it is not cost-effective to lower the threshold from 10% to 7.5% or 5% in the base case without reducing the cost of statins.

The manuscript is well written, and the analysis mostly follows contemporary guidelines for cost-effectiveness analyses. The findings are potentially interesting and could help guide statin prescription in the local setting. However, there are critical methodological issues that I included in the major issues section; they should be addressed to improve the study’s validity. I also included other comments and questions in the following section.

Major issues:

1. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are the claimed primary health outcome in this analysis; however, the sources for quality adjustment are from the Global Burden of Disease studies, where health outcomes are disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). QALYs and DALYs are based on different theoretical grounds and use different methodologies, hence not interchangeable (Sassi, Health Policy and Planning 2006 provides a good overview of this comparison). This error is a fundamental misconception of the difference between QALYs and DALYs. It must be corrected through either converting the ICER metric to cost per DALYs averted or finding appropriate utility weights for estimating QALYs.

2. Based on my reading of the methods, HIV progression and care are not modeled in the simulation model, and CD4 cell count remains constant for the lifetime of model individuals. Even though the study limits its population to those who have been on ART for more than six months, CD4 cell count could still increase significantly and only asymptotes after several years (Gras et al., J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007). Not accounting for changes in CD4 count may underestimate life expectancy (and in fact, the model trajectory of mortality was consistently higher than the mean observed values in Figure 1).

3. Figure 2: About half of the parameters have nearly zero influence on the ICERs, which is a very confusing result because these parameters should impact, in theory, either health or cost outcomes; the sensitivity analysis range for most parameters is not negligible either. Potential modeling/coding errors should be ruled out first; some explanations for this result are needed.

Other comments:

1. This study is titled “When to start statins for people living with HIV in Thailand – A cost-effectiveness analysis,” but the analysis does not concern the timing of statin initiation at all. I suggest using a more appropriate title to indicate the key strategies actually explored, i.e., CVD risk thresholds.

2. While the methods section claims that the model was calibrated to observed data, it was unclear what approach (e.g., Goodness-of-fit measure, searching algorithm) was used to calibrate the model. The calibration approach should be clearly described.

3. This study uses n = 10,000 as the size of model cohort for the microsimulation model and n = 500 for probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), which is much lower than typical sizes used in microsimulation models. I am concerned about the model stability due to stochastic uncertainty and would encourage the authors to use n = 100,000 for the model cohort and n = 1,000 for the PSA.

4. Figure 1: It would be helpful to provide the uncertainty interval from the model trajectories as well – It helps address concerns on model stability as well.

5. The methods section claims that quality-of-life adjustment for the disutility of pill-taking was not considered because the population is already required to take ART pills, which is a reasonable assumption. However, the results indicate that this disutility was indeed explored in their analysis, inconsistent with the methods description. I suggest rewording the methods to frame this disutility as a sensitivity analysis to make the flow consistent.

6. Following the rationale of not including the disutility of pill-taking due to ART use, I wonder if statin adherence should be assumed to be equal to rates observed in the general population. It may be higher because of the exact reason (no added disutility because PLHIV on ART are required to take daily pills already). It would be interesting to discuss this topic since adherence is a critical factor in statin use guidelines.

7. The utility weight for those without a history of CVD was set at 1, which is too high considering this is an HIV-positive population. The authors should first fix the misuse of DALY weights for estimating QALYs, and if they decide to switch to DALYs as the health outcomes, GBD estimates could be used for this value. For example, GBD 2016 estimated a disability weight of 0.078 for PLHIV on ART.

8. Scenario analyses: What is the rationale for using this alternative Rama-EGAT equation as a scenario analysis? The Rama-EGAT equation was developed from an HIV-negative population and was not validated in PLHIV.

Reviewer #2: This is a well written article with nice statistical analysis. It would have been worthwhile to use widely accepted ASCVD risk calculation from AHA/ACC for sensitivity analysis including only people with >40years.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hyun Joon Shin

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 9;16(9):e0256926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256926.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Aug 2021

PLOS ONE

August 11th, 2021

Re. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease thresholds for statin initiation among people living with HIV in Thailand: A cost-effectiveness analysis

(Formerly: When to start statins for people living with HIV in Thailand: A cost-effectiveness analysis)

We hereby re-submit the above manuscript to be considered for publication by PLOS ONE. Detailed responses to reviewer and editor comments are provided below.

Editor

1. Please revise the manuscript by carefully considering points raised by the reviewers. Ensure the revised version also follows CHEERS reporting guidelines and re-attach the CHEERS checklist while submitting the updated manuscript.

Response: Revised CHEERS checklist included with resubmission.

Reviewer #1

1. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are the claimed primary health outcome in this analysis; however, the sources for quality adjustment are from the Global Burden of Disease studies, where health outcomes are disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). QALYs and DALYs are based on different theoretical grounds and use different methodologies, hence not interchangeable (Sassi, Health Policy and Planning 2006 provides a good overview of this comparison). This error is a fundamental misconception of the difference between QALYs and DALYs. It must be corrected through either converting the ICER metric to cost per DALYs averted or finding appropriate utility weights for estimating QALYs.

Response: Thank you for this comment. DALY estimates in the GBD are based on a comprehensive list of utility weights for different health states. These weights can be used to calculate both DALYs and QALYs. We used utility weights defined in the GBD to calculate QALYs. This is common practice in health economics literature (e.g., Kazi 2014 JAMA 316(7):743, Heller 2017 Circulation 136:1087, Boettiger 2021 JIAS 24(3):e25690).

2. Based on my reading of the methods, HIV progression and care are not modeled in the simulation model, and CD4 cell count remains constant for the lifetime of model individuals. Even though the study limits its population to those who have been on ART for more than six months, CD4 cell count could still increase significantly and only asymptotes after several years (Gras et al., J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007). Not accounting for changes in CD4 count may underestimate life expectancy (and in fact, the model trajectory of mortality was consistently higher than the mean observed values in Figure 1).

Response: Thank you. This is an important observation about an aspect of our model that we spent many months discussing. It is now recognized that people with well controlled HIV have a normal life expectancy (Edwards 2021 Ann Int Med). As the reviewer points out, CD4 count may take several years to asymptote, however, after 6mths of ART the vast majority of PLHIV have a CD4 count >500 cells/mm3 – indicative of a strong immune system. We therefore believe it was reasonable to assume no clinically meaningful change in CD4 count beyond 6mths of ART initiation. The reason our modelled mortality rate was slightly higher than the observed mortality rate is most likely due to underreporting of death in TAHOD associated with patients being reported as lost to follow up rather than having died.

3. Figure 2: About half of the parameters have nearly zero influence on the ICERs, which is a very confusing result because these parameters should impact, in theory, either health or cost outcomes; the sensitivity analysis range for most parameters is not negligible either. Potential modeling/coding errors should be ruled out first; some explanations for this result are needed.

Response: It is interesting that many of our parameters had little influence on the final ICERs. This was not unexpected. These parameters are mostly costs or utility weights that are incurred for very short-term and/or rare events, such as acute stroke, MI, and statin-associated diabetes. To confirm the low likelihood of any coding/modelling errors, we have checked our code/model again. We did not isolate anything requiring correction.

4. This study is titled “When to start statins for people living with HIV in Thailand – A cost-effectiveness analysis,” but the analysis does not concern the timing of statin initiation at all. I suggest using a more appropriate title to indicate the key strategies actually explored, i.e., CVD risk thresholds.

Response: Thank you. We have modified the title to: “Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease thresholds for statin initiation among people living with HIV in Thailand: A cost-effectiveness analysis”

5. While the methods section claims that the model was calibrated to observed data, it was unclear what approach (e.g., Goodness-of-fit measure, searching algorithm) was used to calibrate the model. The calibration approach should be clearly described.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have clarified that our calibration procedure used a goodness-of-fit approach. On pg5 it states: “We calibrated our model using a goodness-of-fit approach based on the observed rates of all-cause and cardiovascular death among TAHOD participants between 2009 and 2019. Figure 1 shows that our calibrated model estimates provided an accurate reflection of the observed data.”

6. This study uses n = 10,000 as the size of model cohort for the microsimulation model and n = 500 for probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), which is much lower than typical sizes used in microsimulation models. I am concerned about the model stability due to stochastic uncertainty and would encourage the authors to use n = 100,000 for the model cohort and n = 1,000 for the PSA.

Response: We chose n=10,000 as our model estimates were stable with this cohort size. However, we agree with the reviewer that n=100,000 and n=1,000 are more in line with current practice. We have therefore re-run our models using these numbers. The results were closely aligned with our original findings.

7. Figure 1: It would be helpful to provide the uncertainty interval from the model trajectories as well – It helps address concerns on model stability as well.

Response: We respectfully disagree with this suggestion. The model uncertainty is a function of the number of microsimulations we choose to run. Providing a confidence interval around our model trajectories would misleadingly imply we do not have control over what the confidence interval looks like.

8. The methods section claims that quality-of-life adjustment for the disutility of pill-taking was not considered because the population is already required to take ART pills, which is a reasonable assumption. However, the results indicate that this disutility was indeed explored in their analysis, inconsistent with the methods description. I suggest rewording the methods to frame this disutility as a sensitivity analysis to make the flow consistent.

Response: Thank you for picking up on this. We have revised the wording in the methods to reflect that no pill burden was a key assumption in our base-case model: “Since patients using ART are already required to take at least one daily pill, our base-case model assumed that remembering to take a daily statin and the inconvenience of doing so (pill burden) was not associated with a quality-of-life decrement.” (p7)

9. Following the rationale of not including the disutility of pill-taking due to ART use, I wonder if statin adherence should be assumed to be equal to rates observed in the general population. It may be higher because of the exact reason (no added disutility because PLHIV on ART are required to take daily pills already). It would be interesting to discuss this topic since adherence is a critical factor in statin use guidelines.

Response: Our estimates of statin adherence were based on a 2020 study we conducted in Thailand among PLHIV (Boettiger, 2020, AIDS, Maintenance of statin therapy among people living with HIV). As the reviewer suggests, this study found that statin adherence appears to be slightly better among PLHIV than in the general population.

10. The utility weight for those without a history of CVD was set at 1, which is too high considering this is an HIV-positive population. The authors should first fix the misuse of DALY weights for estimating QALYs, and if they decide to switch to DALYs as the health outcomes, GBD estimates could be used for this value. For example, GBD 2016 estimated a disability weight of 0.078 for PLHIV on ART.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that PLHIV on ART do not have the same QOL as the general population. However, the general population are not included in our model. The best-case health scenario for those included was to be HIV-positive and free of CVD. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to apportion this group a utility weight of 1, indicating optimal health for the population being studied.

11. Scenario analyses: What is the rationale for using this alternative Rama-EGAT equation as a scenario analysis? The Rama-EGAT equation was developed from an HIV-negative population and was not validated in PLHIV.

Response: We agree that Rama-EGAT, as a risk equation based on the general population, is not the ideal ASCVD equation to be used for our model. However, it is widely used for PLHIV in Thailand and well regarded by Thai physicians. It is also not uncommon for clinical guidelines to recommend general population ASCVD equations for PLHIV (e.g., Grundy 2018 JACC 73(24):3168-3209, and Royal College of Physicians of Thailand 2016 Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacologic Therapy of Dyslipidemia for ASCVD prevention http://www.thaiheart.org/Download/2016-RCPT-Dyslipidemia-Guideline.html). We therefore believe it was reasonable to evaluate Rama-EGAT as a scenario analysis.

Reviewer #2

1. This is a well written article with nice statistical analysis. It would have been worthwhile to use widely accepted ASCVD risk calculation from AHA/ACC for sensitivity analysis including only people with >40years.

Response: Thank you for this comment. The DAD equation is a widely accepted, HIV-specific ASCVD risk equation modelled off the Framingham equation and recommended by the AHA/ACC (Feinstein 2019 Circulation 139:e1-e27). In response to this reviewer comment, we have run our model for a population >40 years old (as opposed to >35y in the original analysis). The results are shown in our cover letter. Given these are of a similar magnitude to our base-case, we have not added these findings to the revised manuscript.

Competing interests and data availability

DCB has received research funding from Gilead Sciences and is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship (APP1140503); MGL has received unrestricted grants from Boehringer Ingelhiem, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, and ViiV HealthCare and consultancy fees from Gilead Sciences and data and safety monitoring board sitting fees from Sirtex Pty Ltd; All other authors report no potential competing interests. These declarations do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Data were collected as part of a regional cohort collaboration. The cohort collaboration has data-sharing policies that were approved by the corresponding IRB and specify that both internal and external investigators are subject to a formal process to request access to the data through submission of a concept sheet that adheres to these policies. This study was conducted under these policies, and data will only be available upon request for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Interested individuals should contact Boondarika Petersen (tor.nakornsri@treatasia.org).

Please contact me at dboettiger@kirby.unsw.edu.au should you have any questions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely

Dr David Boettiger, PhD

Decision Letter 1

Ismaeel Yunusa

19 Aug 2021

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease thresholds for statin initiation among people living with HIV in Thailand: A cost-effectiveness analysis

PONE-D-21-09045R1

Dear Dr. Boettiger,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ismaeel Yunusa, PharmD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ismaeel Yunusa

25 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-09045R1

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease thresholds for statin initiation among people living with HIV in Thailand: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Dear Dr. Boettiger:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ismaeel Yunusa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Data Availability Statement

    These data were collected as part of a regional cohort collaboration. The cohort collaboration has data-sharing policies that were approved by the corresponding IRB and specify that both internal and external investigators are subject to a formal process to request access to the data through submission of a concept sheet that adheres to these policies. This study was conducted under these policies, and data will only be available upon request for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Interested individuals should contact Boondarika Petersen (tor.nakornsri@treatasia.org).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES