Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jun 30;17(6):e0270189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270189

Forecast of myocardial infarction incidence, events and prevalence in England to 2035 using a microsimulation model with endogenous disease outcomes

Peter Scarborough 1,2,*, Asha Kaur 1, Linda J Cobiac 1,3
Editor: Y Zhan4
PMCID: PMC9246106  PMID: 35771859

Abstract

Background

Models that forecast non-communicable disease rates are poorly designed to predict future changes in trend because they are based on exogenous measures of disease rates. We introduce microPRIME, which forecasts myocardial infarction (MI) incidence, events and prevalence in England to 2035. microPRIME can forecast changes in trend as all MI rates emerge from competing trends in risk factors and treatment.

Materials and methods

microPRIME is a microsimulation of MI events within a sample of 114,000 agents representative of England. We simulate 37 annual time points from 1998 to 2035, where agents can have an MI event, die from an MI, or die from an unrelated cause. The probability of each event is a function of age, sex, BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking, diabetes and previous MI. This function does not change over time. Instead population-level changes in MI rates are due to competing trends in risk factors and treatment. Uncertainty estimates are based on 450 model runs that use parameters calibrated against external measures of MI rates between 1999 and 2011.

Findings

Forecasted MI incidence rates fall for men and women of different age groups before plateauing in the mid 2020s. Age-standardised event rates show a similar pattern, with a non-significant upturn by 2035, larger for men than women. Prevalence in men decreases for the oldest age groups, with peaks of prevalence rates in 2019 for 85 and older at 25.8% (23.3–28.3). For women, prevalence rates are more stable. Prevalence in over 85s is estimated as 14.5% (12.6–16.5) in 2019, and then plateaus thereafter.

Conclusion

We may see an increase in event rates from MI in England for men before 2035 but increases for women are unlikely. Prevalence rates may fall in older men, and are likely to remain stable in women over the next decade and a half.

Introduction

The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) within a population is a function of many underlying factors, including the demographics within the population (e.g. age distribution, ethnicity), the prevalence of behavioural risk factors (e.g. diet, physical activity, smoking) and related medical conditions (e.g. obesity, hypertension, diabetes), and the level of treatments available. In the UK, both incidence and death rates for CVD are falling [1], and have been since the 1960s [2], which must be due to some combination of changes in the underlying factors described above. The contributions of different factors to these trends have been studied both empirically and through modelling studies. A comprehensive analysis of incidence, case fatality and death rates from myocardial infarction (MI) using linked hospital episodes and death certificates in England [3] estimated that 57% and 52% of the reduction in death rates from men and women, respectively, between 2002 and 2010 were due to falls in event rates, and hence some combination of changes in behavioural risk factors. Unal et al. [4] used the IMPACT model to estimate that 58% of the modelled decline in coronary heart disease mortality in the UK between 1981 and 2000 was due to changes in population risk factors, with the rest due to improvements in treatment. The IMPACT model sums predicted reductions in mortality from calculations of population attributable risks for risk factors and treatments, and this method accounted for 89% of the reduction in CHD deaths over the time period studied.

At the end of the twentieth century, there were predictions of an ‘obesity timebomb’ [5], with adverse trends in both obesity and diabetes predicted to result in increases in CVD rates at some point in the future, and potentially a decline in life expectancy [6]. More recently, Pandya et al. [7] forecast that “continued improvements in cardiovascular disease treatment and declining smoking rates will not outweigh the influence of increasing population age and obesity on cardiovascular disease risk”. To date, increases in CVD rates in the UK have not been observed, but it is still unclear whether such increases are around the corner. This is because CVD forecasting models include a ‘baseline’ future CVD trend that is built around data on previous CVD rates. Most often, this baseline is an extrapolation of previous trends (e.g. [813]). Sometimes, the baseline assumes constant CVD rates (e.g. [14, 15]). Models that include projections of CVD rates as exogenous inputs (either extrapolation of trends or assumption of constant future rates) cannot predict a future change in trend in CVD rates as a result of the balance of conflicting trends in risk factors and treatments. To do so, future CVD rates must be entirely endogenous, and CVD rates should emerge from the model based entirely on inputs about population demographics, risk factors and treatment.

Recent developments in infectious disease modelling have provided tools for coping with the combined uncertainty of multiple factors over time. For example, Bayesian history matching approaches have been used to forecast the prevalence of HIV rates [16]. This method uses techniques developed in the fields of geology and astrophysics to develop models where trends in the outcome of interest (in this case, disease rates) are endogenous to the model. Models using this approach are based on a theory of disease development which relies on parameters that are not known with precision, and the uncertainty around these parameters creates large uncertainty around the modelled disease rates. This uncertainty can be narrowed by calibrating the parameter space to those areas which produce modelled disease rates that are similar to measured estimates from an external dataset. If a model has a large number of uncertain parameters and a long run time, this process is usually assisted by model emulation (i.e. using training data to develop equation-based approximations of the full model). In this paper, we use this method to forecast myocardial infarction (MI) incidence, event and prevalence rates in England to 2035. As the disease rates produced by our model (microPRIME) are endogenous and based on trends in demographics, risk factors and treatments, the results demonstrate whether current adverse trends in obesity and diabetes can outweigh positive trends in blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking and treatment and produce an increase in disease rates in the next decade and a half.

Materials and methods

A complete description of the microPRIME model is provided in the (S1 Text). In summary, the microPRIME model is a framework of interconnecting modules developed in the R coding language, including a microsimulation of MI events within a sample of 114,000 agents representative of the age and sex structure of England. For each agent in turn, microPRIME simulates a history over 37 annual time points, from 1998 to 2035. At each annual time point, the agent can have an MI event, die from an MI, or die from an unrelated cause based on a stochastic process with probability estimated as a function of the agent’s age, sex and risk factor status. This risk factor status consists of three continuous variables—BMI, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and total cholesterol–and three binary variables–smoking, diabetes and previous MI. Aggregated outputs are used to estimate annual prevalence rates (proportion of agents alive who have had a previous MI), incidence rates (the number of first MI events per 100,000), and event rates (the number of any MI events per 100,000).

The model is calibrated to external estimates of incidence, prevalence and event rates between 1999 and 2011. Because of the long run time of the microsimulation model (3 days for 114,000 agents run over 18 core processors), this process is assisted by an emulator. To produce training data for the emulator, the microsimulation model runs 450 times, with each run using a different set of model parameters selected at random from their underlying distribution. The model parameters control the following elements of the microPRIME structure: relative risks linking risk factors and MI incidence; temporal trends in risk factors; and temporal trends in 30 day case fatality rates for MI (which is used as a proxy of treatment effects). The emulator uses the training data to estimate model outcomes over 2,000,000 vectors of parameters drawn at random from the total parameter space. Parameter vectors that produce model outcomes that are too far from externally measured estimates of incidence, prevalence and event rates are rejected. For incidence and event rates the external dataset is a linked dataset of hospital episodes and death certificates [3]. For prevalence, the external dataset is the Health Survey for England series (e.g. [17])–a representative sample of approximately 8,000 adults in England that has run annually since 1992 and has focussed on risk factors for and prevalence of cardiovascular disease in 1998, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2011 and 2017. A sample of 450 of the remaining sets of model parameters is then used in the microsimulation to produce more training data for a more refined set of emulators. This process is continued until pre-defined stopping criteria are achieved and a final set of 450 parameter vectors are obtained. These are used to run the microsimulation to 2035 to produce forecasts of MI incidence, prevalence and event rates. The 450 iterations used in our modelling was greater than the minimum threshold recommended for fitting emulators [16] (for further information about selecting the number of agents and iterations, see the ‘emulator’ section of the S1 Text).

We present forecasts of MI incidence and prevalence rates by sex for four age groups: 55–64, 65–74, 75–84 and 85+. We also present forecasts of event rates that have been age-standardised to the English over-55 age structure in 2018. Each set of estimates is accompanied by 95% uncertainty intervals, which include results between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of 450 model runs. Trends in BMI, SBP, cholesterol, smoking, diabetes and treatment for MI continue in the forecast period (2017–2035) as observed in the period 1992–2016. Details about the BMI trends are published elsewhere [18]–we use future projections where mean BMI approaches an asymptote. Trends in the other risk factors and treatment variables are covered in the (S1 Text). The modelled trends in these risk factors are displayed in the S1 Text in two ways. S2 Fig in S1 Text shows the trends in each risk factor between 1998 and 2035 (mean for continuous variables, prevalence for binary variables). S2 Table in S1 Text compares modelled estimates for each risk factor for the year 2011 with estimates from the 2011 Health Survey for England, to demonstrate compatibility of the modelled trends with measured data at a single point in time.

We validate the model against age and sex-specific estimates of the prevalence of MI from the Health Survey for England 2017 [19]. These estimates were left out of the emulator’s external dataset so as to be independent of the model building process. We considered the model to be validated if the 95% confidence intervals for the prevalence estimates overlapped with the 95% uncertainty intervals of the model after a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons [20].

Results

Fig 1 shows the projected incidence rates for first MI by age group and sex. For all age and sex groups, incidence of MI fell up to the end of the calibration period (2011) and then continued to fall for a further ten years, before steadying from approximately the year 2020. For women in the age range 75–84, there was a small upturn in the incidence rate after 2020, increasing from 643 (429–876) new events per 100,000 to 666 (427–949) per 100,000 by the end of the forecast period. Similarly, there was a small upturn for men aged 55–64, increasing from 463 (325–640) per 100,000 in 2019 to 592 (395–813) per 100,000 in 2035, but both of these increases were well within the 95% uncertainty intervals. Direct comparisons between incidence rates for men and women are shown in the S1 Text.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Modelled incidence rates of first MI by age group for men (A) and women (B), 1998–2035.

Modelled age-standardised event rates for MI (first and subsequent) are shown in Fig 2. Similar to the modelled results for incidence the model produces falling event rates across the calibration period, which extend to 2020. For women, event rates then show a very modest increase from 464 (365–583) per 100,000 in 2019 to 482 (351–666) per 100,000 in 2035. For men, rates increase more sharply from 845 (655–1038) per 100,000 in 2019 to 1042 (761–1371) per 100,000 in 2035. As for forecast incidence rates, these increases did not exceed 95% uncertainty intervals.

Fig 2. Modelled age-standardised event rates for MI (first and subsequent) for men and women, over 55s only, 1998–2035.

Fig 2

Modelled prevalence rates are shown in Fig 3. For men, there are diverging patterns of prevalence of ever having had a MI for older and younger age groups during the calibration period. Rates decrease for the 55–64 and 65–74 year olds, but increase for the 75–84 and 85+ age groups. In the forecast period we see a clear change in trend for all of the age groups. There is a peak of prevalence rates in 2019 for 85 and older at 25.8% (23.3–28.3), but then falls in prevalence rates after this. For the younger age groups, the falling prevalence rates plateau and then begin to increase in the mid 2020s. For women, prevalence rates appear to be more stable over both the calibration and forecast period. For the two younger age groups, prevalence rates slowly declined over the calibration period and continue to decline after this. For the over 85s, prevalence rates climb from 11.0% (10.4–11.7) in 1999 to 14.5% (12.6–16.5) in 2019, and then plateau. Prevalence rates are consistently higher for men than for women across all age groups (see S1 Text).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Modelled prevalence rates of first MI by age group for men (A) and women (B), 1998–2035.

To validate the model we compared modelled estimates of the prevalence of ever having had MI in 2017 (six years after the calibration period) with external estimates from the Health Survey for England, and the results are shown in Fig 4. For each age-sex group, the 95% confidence intervals from the external dataset overlapped with the 95% uncertainty intervals from the modelled runs, with the exception of the 55–64 year old females. In this age-sex group, the modelled prevalence of MI in 2019 was 2.07% (1.77–2.38), compared to the external dataset estimate of 0.81% (0.01–1.73).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Validation of the model by comparison of modelled estimates of prevalence of ever having had MI with external estimates from the Health Survey for England 2017 for men (A) and women (B). Black vertical bars represent 95% confidence intervals for the prevalence of ever having had MI for 1998, 2003, 2006 and 2011, which were used in the model parameterisation process. Red vertical bars represent 95% confidence intervals for prevalence in 2017, which was not used in the model parameterisation process.

Discussion

Summary and implications

Using our unique model infrastructure, calibrated using methods that have been successfully applied to infectious disease modelling [16], we forecast that the adverse trends in obesity and diabetes that have been observed in the UK for the last thirty years may result in increases in MI incidence and events for men by 2035 but are unlikely to do so for women. The negative health consequences of these trends are balanced by improvements in smoking, blood pressure and cholesterol management, and reductions in 30-day case fatality linked to improved treatment. Due to improvements in survival from MI alongside reductions in incidence, we model increases in the prevalence of older men and women having had a previous MI until approximately 2020, and then steady levels for women and reductions in prevalence for men.

Although we only modelled MI rates, due to similar risk factors for other major cardiovascular diseases (angina, heart failure and stroke) our results suggest that large increases in cardiovascular disease incidence in England for women are not likely before 2035. They also suggest that increases in prevalence for both older men and women may have already occurred and will now be followed by declines in men and steady levels for women, which has implications for NHS resource planning.

We have demonstrated that forecast and scenario models for non-communicable diseases can be developed that do not rely on exogenous estimates of future disease rates. These methods could be applied to multiple diseases and risk factors to aide resource planning. By incorporating estimates of disease burden and economic costs, such models could be used to produce health economic estimates for evaluations of population-level health interventions and policies. Although modelling frameworks currently exist for that purpose [8, 21], the model structure introduced here builds on previous work by explicitly incorporating the effect of risk factors and treatment into observed and forecast trends in disease outcomes. There are two developments that would increase the usefulness of non-communicable disease forecast models, such as microPRIME. First, forecast models would benefit from multiple disease outcomes across different categories of non-communicable diseases. Being able to forecast across multiple diseases has obvious benefits for resource planning, but it could also improve the accuracy of model forecasts for any given disease. This is because non-communicable diseases share common risk factors, so trends in these risk factors will affect disease incidence across multiple diseases–without explicitly incorporating these multiple disease pathways in the model framework a model will not account for related trends in these competing risks. Second, public health policymakers would benefit from models that incorporate more behavioural risk factors for disease (e.g. poor diet, lack of physical activity, alcohol consumption). By including such risk factors (either through direct associations with disease outcomes, or indirectly via body weight, blood pressure etc.) forecast models would be able to run policy scenarios aimed at changing behaviour.

Strengths and limitations

The microPRIME model is a unique contribution to forecast and scenario modelling for non-communicable diseases. It has been validated against external estimates of the prevalence of ever having had a MI. The underlying code for microPRIME is freely available from https://github.com/PeteScarbs/microPRIME/ and the Oxford Research Archive (DOI: 10.5287/bodleian:9eQ09708Z). Although microPRIME currently operates for only a single disease, because it has been designed as a microsimulation adding new risk factors and disease outcomes is straightforward and should have only a small impact on computing time [22].

Although all forecasts of MI rates in microPRIME are endogenous, it does have to rely on exogenous forecasts of trends in risk factors and treatment which are of course inherently uncertain. Our extrapolations of trends in overweight and obesity [18] have demonstrated how different models can have extremely similar fit to past trends and still diverge considerably in forecasts. This shows how even when purportedly following a data-driven approach, the choices of modellers can impact on future predictions. Ideally, such choices could be explored in sensitivity analyses, and the range of potential results can be incorporated in uncertainty ranges around forecasts. For this paper, the uncertainty ranges were generated from the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of model outcomes from 450 model runs, and will be an underestimate of the true uncertainty of future MI rates as each model run assumes that past trends in risk factors and treatments will continue over the forecasted period.

The emulator that was built to estimate model outcomes across a wide range of the available parameter space was tested by assessing the correlation between emulated model outcomes and observed model outcomes (from training data generated by microPRIME model runs). These diagnostic tests revealed that the emulator was more successful at reproducing modelled estimates of MI prevalence and event rates than for incidence rates, and therefore the calibration process (where parameter space that produces results that are not compatible with observed outcomes from external datasets is removed) was weighted more towards prevalence and event rate outcomes.

The agents in the microPRIME model could die from a cause unrelated to MI, with probability based upon death rates for all causes where MI was not mentioned at any point on the death certificate. These death rates were included as exogenous inputs in both the calibration and forecast ranges of the model. The non-MI death rates were assumed to be unrelated to the risk factors included in the modelling process (smoking, blood pressure, cholesterol, BMI and diabetes), which is an over-simplification since these risk factors are related to many health outcomes other than MI. This implies that agents that had a high risk profile (and therefore are more likely to have an MI) would have death rates that are lower than would be expected in real life, which would result in an over-estimation of the prevalence of MI.

Comparison with existing literature

In this paper we forecast future CVD rates for a population based on competing trends in treatment and risk factor status. Pandya et al. [7] forecast that CVD prevalence rates in the US would increase up to 2030 due to increasing obesity outweighing declines in smoking and improvements in treatment. However, their forecasts are partially based on exogenous trends in CVD rates. This is also the case for other CVD forecast models [2327] and estimates of future life expectancy [28] or health service use [29]. Some models of population CVD outcomes base their forecasts on individual-level disease prediction scores that have been calibrated using historical disease rates in the population of interest (e.g. [3032]). These models are the closest in design to microPRIME, but they do not allow for independent uncertainties around the relationships between the disease outcomes and the individual risk factors included in the risk prediction scores. Therefore, it is assumed that these relationships are the same as were observed in the cohort used to develop the risk score, despite requirement to calibrate the modelled disease outcomes from the risk scores to levels observed in the population under investigation. In microPRIME, all risk factors are included independently, and their joint relationships with MI incidence are those that are selected in the calibration process. The two most similar modelling approaches of which we are aware are the IMPACTNCD microsimulation model [33], and the Future Elderly Model [34]. The IMPACTNCD model generates static coronary heart disease incidence rates by applying population attributable fractions for blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking, body weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption and area-level deprivation. For a baseline calibration year, this approach estimates the incident rate expected if all risk factors were at the level associated with lowest risk, and this static incident rate is then used throughout the forecast modelling period. Our approach builds on this by using the history matching process to ensure the static rates are consistent with multiple historical estimates of MI incidence, event and prevalence rates. The Future Elderly Model projects a microsimulation representing the US population of adults aged 50 and over to forecast mortality rates, disease burden and healthcare costs. Forecasted mortality rates are endogenous to the model, and based on trends in sociodemographic factors, smoking status and disease conditions. We use a similar approach but apply it to disease incidence rather than total mortality.

Conclusion

Using a modelling approach unique to non-communicable disease scenario models we forecast that if current trends in risk factors and treatment continue, we are unlikely to see an increase in incidence and event rates from MI in England for women before 2035, but incidence and events may begin to rise for men. The prevalence of having had a MI is likely to remain stable for women over the next decade and half. For older men, prevalence rates are likely to initially fall before plateauing.

Supporting information

S1 Text. Detailed description of the microPRIME model.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All data used for this paper were requested from public repositories, sometimes with conditions attached to access. These repositories include: The UK Data Archive, which stores data from the Health Survey for England (HSE) series (https://www.data-archive.ac.uk/). Specifically, we use data from the following surveys (DOI for UK Data Archive storage location provided in brackets): • HSE1993 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3316-1) • HSE1994 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3640-2) • HSE1995 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3796-2) • HSE1996 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3886-2) • HSE1997 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3979-2) • HSE1998 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4150-1) • HSE1999 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4365-1) • HSE2000 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4487-1) • HSE2001 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4628-1) • HSE2002 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4912-1) • HSE2003 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-5098-1) • HSE2004 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-5439-1) • HSE2005 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-5675-1) • HSE2006 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-5809-1) • HSE2007 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6112-1) • HSE2008 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6397-2) • HSE2009 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6732-2) • HSE2010 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6986-3) • HSE2011 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7260-1) • HSE2012 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7480-1) • HSE2013 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7649-1) • HSE2014 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7919-3) • HSE2017 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-8488-2) The Office for National Statistics mortality division, which provided data on deaths from myocardial infarction by age, sex and year (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths). This dataset is available from the University of Oxford Research Archive (DOI: 10.5287/bodleian:9eQ09708Z). All other data used in construction of the model were taken from published results from articles cited in the supporting information. The datasets compiling these results are available from the University of Oxford Research Archive (DOI: 10.5287/bodleian:9eQ09708Z). Full access to the R scripts that run the microPRIME model are available on GitHub (https://github.com/PeteScarbs/microPRIME/) and from the University of Oxford Research Archive (DOI: 10.5287/bodleian:9eQ09708Z).

Funding Statement

PS was supported by a British Heart Foundation (www.bhf.org.uk) Intermediate Basic Science Research fellowship (FS/15/34/31656). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.British Heart Foundation. Heart and Circulatory Disease Statistics 2021. London: British Heart Foundation; 2021. Available from: https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/our-research/heart-statistics/heart-statistics-publications/cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2021 [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Scarborough P, Wickramasinghe K, Bhatnagar P, Rayner M. Trends in coronary heart disease 1961–2011. London: British Heart Foundation; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Determinants of the decline in mortality from acute myocardial infarction in England between 2002 and 2010: linked national database study. BMJ, 2013;347: f7379 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7379 [correction to Smolina K, Wright FL, Rayner M, Goldacre MJ. Determinants of the decline in mortality from acute myocardial infarction in England between 2002 and 2010: linked national database study. BMJ. 2012;344: d8059.] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Unal B, Critchley JA, Capewell S. Explaining the decline in coronary heart disease mortality in England and Wales between 1981 and 2000. Circulation. 2004;109: 1101–1107. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000118498.35499.B2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bray G. Obesity: a time bomb to be defused. Lancet. 1998:352: 160–161. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)22029-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Olshansky SJ, Passaro DJ, Hershow RC, Layden J, Carnes BA, Brody J, et al. A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(11): 1138–45. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr043743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pandya A, Gaziano TA, Weinstein MC, Cutler D. More Americans living longer with cardiovascular disease will increase costs while lowering quality of life. Health Affairs. 2013;10: 1706–1714. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0449 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cobiac LJ, Scarborough P, Kaur A, Rayner M. The Eatwell guide: Modelling the health implications of incorporating new sugar and fibre guidelines. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(12): e0167859. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Briggs ADM, Cobiac LJ, Wolstenholme J, Scarborough P. PRIMEtime CE: a multistate life table model for estimating the cost-effectiveness of interventions affecting diet and physical activity. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1): 485. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4237-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006;3(11): e442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Foreman KJ, Marquez N, Dolgert A, Fukutaki K, Fullman N, McGaughey BA et al. Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016–40 for 195 countries and territories. Lancet. 2018;392(10159): 2052–2090. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31694-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pearson-Stuttard J, Guzman-Castillo M, Penalvo JL, Rehm CD, Afshin A, Danaei G, et al. Modeling Future Cardiovascular Disease Mortality in the United States. Circulation. 2016;133(10): 967–978. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.019904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Salomaa V, Havulinna AS, Koukkunen H, Karja-Koskenkari P, Pietila A, Mustonen J, et al. Aging of the population may not lead to an increase in the numbers of acute coronary events: a community surveillance study and modelled forecast of the future. Heart. 2013;99: 954–959. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-303216 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Butland B, Jebb S, Kopelman P, McPherson K, Thomas S, Mardell J, et al. Foresight. Tackling obesities: future choices–project report. London: Government Office for Sciences; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, Butler J, Dracup K, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(8): 933–44. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31820a55f5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Andrianakis I, Vernon IR, McCreesh N, McKinley TJ, Oakley JE, Nsubuga RN, et al. Bayesian history matching of complex infectious disease models using emulation: a tutorial and a case study on HIV in Uganda. PLoS Comp Biol. 2015;11(1): e1003968. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003968 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.NatCen. Health Survey for England 2011 –health, social care and lifestyles. London: The Information Centre; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cobiac LJ, Scarborough P. Modelling future trajectories of obesity and body mass index in England. PLos One. 2021;16(6): e0252072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Office for National Statistics. Health Survey for England 2017: adult and child overweight and obesity. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Haynes W. Bonferroni correction. In: Dubitzky W., Wolkenhauer O., Cho KH., Yokota H. (eds) Encyclopedia of systems biology. New York: Springer; 2013. Available from: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9863-7_1213 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Vos T, Carter R, Barendregt J, Mihalopoulos C, Veerman L, Magnus A, et al. Assessing cost-effectiveness in prevention (ACE-Prevention). Melbourne and Brisbane: University of Queensland and Deakin University; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Briggs ADM, Wolstenholme J, Blakely T, Scarborough P. Choosing an epidemiological model structure for the economic evaluation of non-communicable disease public health interventions. Pop Health Metrics. 2016;14(1): 17. doi: 10.1186/s12963-016-0085-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Huffman MD, Capewell S, Ning H, Shay CM, Ford ES, Lloyd-Jones DM. Cardiovascular health behavior and health factor changes (1988–2008) and projections to 2020: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. Circulation. 2012;125(21): 2595–602. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.070722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Amiri M, Janssen F, Kunst AE. The decline in ischaemic heart disease mortality in seven European countries: exploration of future trends. J Epidemiol & Comm Health. 2011;65: 676–681. doi: 10.1136/jech.2010.109058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Balbay Y, Gagnon-Arpin I, Malhan S, Oksuz ME, Sutherland G, Dobrescu A et al. Modeling the burden of cardiovascular disease in Turkey. Anatol J Cardiol. 2018;20(4): 235–240. doi: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2018.89106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chan F, Adamo S, Coxson P, Goldman L, Gu D, Zhao D, et al. Projected impact of urbanization on cardiovascular disease in China. Int J Public Health. 2012;57: 849–854. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0400-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Guzman-Castillo M, Ahmadi-Abhari S, Bandosz P, Capewell S, Steptoe A, Singh-Manoux A, et al. Forecasted trends in disability and life expectancy in England and Wales up to 2025: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(7): e307–e313. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30091-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Stewart ST, Cutler DM, Rosen AB. Forecasting the effects of obesity and smoking on U.S. life expectancy. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(23): 2252–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0900459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dall TM, Gallo PD, Chakrabarti R, West T, Semilla AP, Storm MV. An aging population and growing disease burden will require a large and specialized health care workforce by 2025. Health Affairs. 2013;32(11): 2013–2020. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bibbins-Domingo K, Coxson P, Pletcher MJ, Lightwood J, Goldman L. Adolescent overweight and future adult coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(23): 2371–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa073166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Grau M, Subirana I, Vila J, Elosua R, Ramos R, Sala J, et al. Validation of a population coronary disease predictive system: the CASSANDRA model. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68: 1012–1019. doi: 10.1136/jech-2013-203516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ortendahl JD, Diamant AL, Toth PP, Cherepanov D, Harmon AL, Broder MS. Protecting the gains: what changes are needed to prevent a reversal of the downward cardiovascular disease mortality trend? Clinical Cardiol. 2019;42: 47–55. doi: 10.1002/clc.23097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kypridemos C, Allen K, Hickey GL, Guzman-Castillo M, Bandosz P, Buchan I, et al. Cardiovascular screening to reduce the burden from cardiovascular disease: microsimulation study to quantify policy options. BMJ, 2016;353:l2793. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ermini Leaf D, Tysinger B, Goldman DP, Lakdawalla DN. Predicting quantity and quality of life with the Future Elderly Model. Health Econ, 2021;30(S1):52–79. doi: 10.1002/hec.4169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Y Zhan

28 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-32355Forecast of myocardial infarction incidence, events and prevalence in England to 2035 using a microsimulation model with endogenous disease outcomesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Scarborough,

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 May 12 2022 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: https://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,

Yiqiang Zhan

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 stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“PS is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Basic Science fellowship (FS/15/34/31656).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“PS was supported by a British Heart Foundation (www.bhf.org.uk) Intermediate Basic Science Research fellowship (FS/15/34/31656). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

  • Codes of the analysis could be supplemented in a separate file.

[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: Yes

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 paper describes a microsimulation model of myocardial infarction (MI) incidence that seeks to model this outcome fully endogenously. In other words, rather than relying on extrapolation of trends in MI, the model instead relies on inputs about population demographics, risk factors, and treatment. In spirit, this has a similar philosophical basis as the Future Elderly Model and its related microsimulations.

The model includes three continuous variables (BMI, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol) and three binary variables (smoking, diabetes, and previous MI). MI is then a function of these (plus demographic characteristics and the impact of technological advancement in treating MI), incorporating assumptions about the future trends of these predictor variables. Several sets of results are presented, including future incidence rates (by age group and gender), age-standardized MI events by gender, future prevalence of MI (by age group and gender), and external validation of future prevalence of MI compared to observed data at one point particular point in time (2017).

It is challenging to describe a complex microsimulation model clearly and I think the authors have done a good job here, with one important exception. The authors rely heavily on calibrating their model to historic data (1993-2014 for risk factors, I think). It would help build confidence in the model if the key endogenous variables used in the simulation were summarized at a particular point in time (perhaps 2011?). For example, a table conveying statistics on BMI, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and prevalence of smoking and diabetes. The reader would then feel confident that the model was at a reasonable place in 2011.

Similarly, it would help to provide a bit more on the extrapolated/fitted future trajectories in BMI, blood pressure management, cholesterol management, smoking, diabetes, and treatment for MI. These are areas where reasonable people likely differ in their assessment of the future, so some more information about these future trends, such as figures in the appendix would help greatly.

Figure 4 would be strengthened by including historic prevalence of MI from the survey data. This, too, will build credibility with the reader. I note that the PLOS ONE paper on BMI modeling (Figure 1 in https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252072) includes historic data on BMI in a similar exercise.

Reviewer #2: This is an important simulation study to forecast myocardial infarction incidence, events and prevalence in England to 2035. I found the article well written and the methodological approach original and interesting. I do have some minor comments

1) Page 5: The authors should explain the choice of 450 model runs which is an unusual choice, usually you expect to see model runs closer to 10,000. The authors need to answer the following questions: Why did they choose 450 runs and not some other number? What is the expected impact of choosing a higher number of runs? I'm assuming that they chose the biggest number that was feasible in terms of estimation times? If that is the case I would have liked to see tests where they had a bigger numbers (than 450) of model runs for a smaller subset of agents or less horizon time to test how sensitive the model estimates as model runs increase for a given number of agents/horizon time.

2) Figures: Say what the dashed line means i.e. calibration year in all figures rather than just in the main text

3) Did you explore differences by age and gender rather than only separately? At the very least it would be useful to add a figure that is similar to Figure 1 but shows the different age groups by gender. In that way we can compare 85+ women vs men or 75-84 old women vs men and so on.

4) What is the policy recommendation from your research? If you do not have specific policy implications to add then what do you suggest for future research in this area? How can we improve our modelling forecasts? What kind of data do we need? Can you add something brief to the discussion section of the paper?

**********

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

[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. 2022 Jun 30;17(6):e0270189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270189.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 May 2022

For responses to the editors, please see the 'Response to Reviewers' document. Responses to the reviewers are also provided below.

Reviewer 1 comments

This paper describes a microsimulation model of myocardial infarction (MI) incidence that seeks to model this outcome fully endogenously. In other words, rather than relying on extrapolation of trends in MI, the model instead relies on inputs about population demographics, risk factors, and treatment. In spirit, this has a similar philosophical basis as the Future Elderly Model and its related microsimulations.

Response: We had overlooked the Future Elderly Model, so we thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We agree that the microPRIME model uses similar methods to forecast health outcomes as the Future Elderly Model and we have added the following text to the ‘Comparison with existing literature’ section of the discussion: “The Future Elderly Model projects a microsimulation representing the US population of adults aged 50 and over to forecast mortality rates, disease burden and healthcare costs. Forecasted mortality rates are endogenous to the model, and based on trends in sociodemographic factors, smoking status and disease conditions. We use a similar approach but apply it to disease incidence rather than total mortality.”

The model includes three continuous variables (BMI, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol) and three binary variables (smoking, diabetes, and previous MI). MI is then a function of these (plus demographic characteristics and the impact of technological advancement in treating MI), incorporating assumptions about the future trends of these predictor variables. Several sets of results are presented, including future incidence rates (by age group and gender), age-standardized MI events by gender, future prevalence of MI (by age group and gender), and external validation of future prevalence of MI compared to observed data at one point particular point in time (2017). It is challenging to describe a complex microsimulation model clearly and I think the authors have done a good job here, with one important exception. The authors rely heavily on calibrating their model to historic data (1993-2014 for risk factors, I think). It would help build confidence in the model if the key endogenous variables used in the simulation were summarized at a particular point in time (perhaps 2011?). For example, a table conveying statistics on BMI, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and prevalence of smoking and diabetes. The reader would then feel confident that the model was at a reasonable place in 2011.

Response: Thank you for your comments – we are very pleased that you find the methods section and the supplementary material to be a good description of the process. We agree with the reviewer that it would build confidence to present a comparison between modelled and measured estimates of risk factors in the year 2011. We have run these analyses and present the results in a new table in the supplementary material (table S2). We have also added a sentence to the methods section of the main paper to draw attention to this new table. From the 450 iterations of the microPRIME model we extracted estimates from 2011 of the mean of BMI, systolic blood pressure and total cholesterol, and prevalence of smoking and diabetes. There were 5 risk factors, 4 age categories and 2 sexes, resulting in 40 risk factor-age-sex groups for comparison with estimates from the Health Survey for England. For 34 of these groups, the uncertainty intervals from the microPRIME model overlapped with the 95% confidence intervals from the Health Survey for England data.

Similarly, it would help to provide a bit more on the extrapolated/fitted future trajectories in BMI, blood pressure management, cholesterol management, smoking, diabetes, and treatment for MI. These are areas where reasonable people likely differ in their assessment of the future, so some more information about these future trends, such as figures in the appendix would help greatly.

Response: We agree that this would help readers to understand how the model operates. We have added a new figure to the supplementary material that shows the trends in each of the risk factors over the periods for which the regression models were built (1993 – 2014), and projections of these trends to 2035. To demonstrate differences by sex and age, for each risk factor we display trends for men and women aged 40 and 80.

Figure 4 would be strengthened by including historic prevalence of MI from the survey data. This, too, will build credibility with the reader. I note that the PLOS ONE paper on BMI modeling (Figure 1 in https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252072) includes historic data on BMI in a similar exercise.

Response: We have updated figure 4 by adding historic data on the prevalence of MI from 1998, 2003, 2006 and 2011. This demonstrates how are modelled estimates track the survey data over time.

Reviewer 2 comments

This is an important simulation study to forecast myocardial infarction incidence, events and prevalence in England to 2035. I found the article well written and the methodological approach original and interesting. I do have some minor comments

Response: Thank you for your helpful comments and review of the paper.

1) Page 5: The authors should explain the choice of 450 model runs which is an unusual choice, usually you expect to see model runs closer to 10,000. The authors need to answer the following questions: Why did they choose 450 runs and not some other number? What is the expected impact of choosing a higher number of runs? I'm assuming that they chose the biggest number that was feasible in terms of estimation times? If that is the case I would have liked to see tests where they had a bigger numbers (than 450) of model runs for a smaller subset of agents or less horizon time to test how sensitive the model estimates as model runs increase for a given number of agents/horizon time.

Response: We agree that the number of model runs used in this process is smaller than you would usually see for a health model. That is partly because of the high computational demands of the microPRIME model, and partly because estimates of uncertainty in the microPRIME model results are generated differently than for most health models. For microPRIME, we use emulators to reduce the set of parameter space that produces implausible results by calibration against external datasets (the ‘history matching’ approach described in the manuscript). It is this history matching approach that determines the size of the uncertainty intervals, rather than the number of model runs. However, the number of model runs is important as it (in part) determines the accuracy of the emulators. We did run tests to determine the number of model runs for optimal results with available computing power, and we have added the following text to the supplementary material to describe this process:

“For each of the model outcomes that are being emulated, one iteration of the microPRIME model provides one data point used to fit the emulators. For our analyses we used 450 iterations, so each emulator was fit using 450 data points. As a rule of thumb, Andrianakis et al. (2015) suggest there should be at least 10 data points for every parameter that is allowed to vary in the model. For our analyses we have 38 varying parameters, (19 for men and 19 for women). Since separate emulators are built for men and women, this means that we have over 23 data points per varying parameter. There are two methods to improve the fit of the emulators. First, you can increase the number of iterations in the training data – this provides a greater number of data points to fit the emulators. Second, you can increase the number of agents in each iteration – this reduces stochastic variation in model outcomes, which in turn reduces the random noise in the emulator fitting process. Both of these methods increase the time taken for both the microsim and emulator modules to run, so selecting appropriate numbers of agents and iterations requires a balance. We tested the microPRIME model over a range of 50,000-114,000 agents and 380-900 iterations, to observe the computation time and the number of emulated outcomes for which correlation with modelled outcomes achieved a minimum threshold (r > 0.6). We found that increasing the number of agents had a bigger impact on emulator fit than increasing the number of iterations. Therefore, we prioritised a high number of agents and moderate number of iterations in our final model.”

We have also added a small amount of text to the main paper, as follows:

“We used 450 iterations in our modelling as this was greater than the threshold recommended for fitting emulators [16] (for further information about selecting the number of agents and iterations, see the ‘emulator’ section of the supplementary material).”

2) Figures: Say what the dashed line means i.e. calibration year in all figures rather than just in the main text

Response: This has been added to all of the figures.

3) Did you explore differences by age and gender rather than only separately? At the very least it would be useful to add a figure that is similar to Figure 1 but shows the different age groups by gender. In that way we can compare 85+ women vs men or 75-84 old women vs men and so on.

Response: We have added new figures that demonstrate differences by sex in the supplementary material.

4) What is the policy recommendation from your research? If you do not have specific policy implications to add then what do you suggest for future research in this area? How can we improve our modelling forecasts? What kind of data do we need? Can you add something brief to the discussion section of the paper?

Response: The primary aim of this paper is to introduce a model that uses unique methods to forecast myocardial infarction rates in England. Because of the complexity of the model, we have dedicated this paper just to reporting the forecast results from the microPRIME model. In future analyses we will conduct scenario analyses with implications for public health policies, but here the policy implications are restricted to the benefits of better forecasts of future disease burden. We already discuss this in the original manuscript (see example text below).

FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT: “Although we only modelled MI rates, due to similar risk factors for other major cardiovascular diseases (angina, heart failure and stroke) our results suggest that large increases in cardiovascular disease incidence in England are not likely before 2035. They also suggest that increases in prevalence may have already occurred and will now be followed by declines in men and steady levels for women, which has implications for NHS resource planning.”

We agree that the manuscript would benefit from a brief discussion of how we can improve modelling forecasts. We have added the following to the discussion:

“There are two developments that would increase the usefulness of non-communicable disease forecast models, such as microPRIME. First, forecast models would benefit from multiple disease outcomes across different categories of non-communicable diseases. Being able to forecast across multiple diseases has obvious benefits for resource planning, but it could also improve the accuracy of model forecasts for any given disease. This is because non-communicable diseases share common risk factors, so trends in these risk factors will affect disease incidence across multiple diseases – without explicitly incorporating these multiple disease pathways in the model framework a model will not account for related trends in these competing risks. Second, public health policymakers would benefit from models that incorporate more behavioural risk factors for disease (e.g. poor diet, lack of physical activity, alcohol consumption). By including such risk factors (either through direct associations with disease outcomes, or indirectly via body weight, blood pressure etc.) forecast models would be able to run policy scenarios aimed at changing behaviour.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Forecast of MI to 2035_response_MAY2022.docx

Decision Letter 1

Y Zhan

7 Jun 2022

Forecast of myocardial infarction incidence, events and prevalence in England to 2035 using a microsimulation model with endogenous disease outcomes

PONE-D-21-32355R1

Dear Dr. Scarborough,

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,

Y Zhan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Y Zhan

10 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-32355R1

Forecast of myocardial infarction incidence, events and prevalence in England to 2035 using a microsimulation model with endogenous disease outcomes

Dear Dr. Scarborough:

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. Y Zhan

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 Text. Detailed description of the microPRIME model.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Forecast of MI to 2035_response_MAY2022.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data used for this paper were requested from public repositories, sometimes with conditions attached to access. These repositories include: The UK Data Archive, which stores data from the Health Survey for England (HSE) series (https://www.data-archive.ac.uk/). Specifically, we use data from the following surveys (DOI for UK Data Archive storage location provided in brackets): • HSE1993 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3316-1) • HSE1994 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3640-2) • HSE1995 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3796-2) • HSE1996 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3886-2) • HSE1997 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-3979-2) • HSE1998 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4150-1) • HSE1999 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4365-1) • HSE2000 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4487-1) • HSE2001 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4628-1) • HSE2002 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-4912-1) • HSE2003 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-5098-1) • HSE2004 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-5439-1) • HSE2005 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-5675-1) • HSE2006 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-5809-1) • HSE2007 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6112-1) • HSE2008 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6397-2) • HSE2009 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6732-2) • HSE2010 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-6986-3) • HSE2011 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7260-1) • HSE2012 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7480-1) • HSE2013 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7649-1) • HSE2014 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7919-3) • HSE2017 (DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-8488-2) The Office for National Statistics mortality division, which provided data on deaths from myocardial infarction by age, sex and year (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths). This dataset is available from the University of Oxford Research Archive (DOI: 10.5287/bodleian:9eQ09708Z). All other data used in construction of the model were taken from published results from articles cited in the supporting information. The datasets compiling these results are available from the University of Oxford Research Archive (DOI: 10.5287/bodleian:9eQ09708Z). Full access to the R scripts that run the microPRIME model are available on GitHub (https://github.com/PeteScarbs/microPRIME/) and from the University of Oxford Research Archive (DOI: 10.5287/bodleian:9eQ09708Z).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES