Additional file 1 of Risk thresholds for soft versus hard cardiovascular disease outcome models for initiating statin therapy among Chinese adults: a cost-utility analysis

Additional file 1: Supplemental Method—CHEERS 2022 Checklist. Figures S1–S14. Fig. S1 Structure of the Markov model; Fig. S2 Calibration plots for CKB hard and soft ASCVD models after recalibration; Fig. S3 Observed vs. simulated probabilities of all events over 10 years; Fig. S4 GBD vs. simulated age-sex-specific all-cause mortality; Fig. S5 One-way sensitivity analyses for soft ASCVD model threshold of 18% vs. 19%; Fig. S6 One-way sensitivity analyses for hard ASCVD model threshold of 10% vs. 11%; Fig. S7 One-way sensitivity analyses for soft ASCVD model threshold of 13% vs. 14% in population aged 30–59 years; Fig. S8 Cost-utility acceptability curves for soft ASCVD threshold strategies in population aged 30–59 years; Fig. S9 One-way sensitivity analyses for hard ASCVD model threshold of 9% vs. 10% in population aged 30–59 years; Fig. S10 Cost-utility acceptability curves for hard ASCVD threshold strategies in population aged 30–59 years; Fig. S11 One-way sensitivity analyses for soft ASCVD model threshold of 20% vs. no treatment in population aged 60–75 years; Fig. S12 Cost-utility acceptability curves for soft ASCVD threshold strategies in population aged 60–75 years; Fig. S13 One-way sensitivity analyses for hard ASCVD model threshold of 15% vs. no treatment in population aged 60–75 years; Fig. S14 Cost-utility acceptability curves for hard ASCVD threshold strategies in population aged 60–75 years. Tables S1–S8. Table S1 Disease progression inputs used in the cost-utility model; Table S2 Baseline characteristics of participants with soft or hard ASCVD outcomes occurred during follow-up in CKB study; Table S3 Baseline characteristics of high-risk population defined by optimal thresholds for soft and hard ASCVD models; Table S4 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for hard ASCVD model by age; Table S5 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for soft ASCVD model by region; Table S6 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for hard ASCVD model by region; Table S7 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for soft ASCVD model by sex; Table S8 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for hard ASCVD model by sex.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Figshare
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29454556.v1
Primary Topic
Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Additional file 1 of Risk thresholds for soft versus hard cardiovascular disease outcome models for initiating statin therapy among Chinese adults: a cost-utility analysis

Figshare
Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
article

Additional file 1 of Risk thresholds for soft versus hard cardiovascular disease outcome models for initiating statin therapy among Chinese adults: a cost-utility analysis

article en

Abstract

Additional file 1: Supplemental Method—CHEERS 2022 Checklist. Figures S1–S14. Fig. S1 Structure of the Markov model; Fig. S2 Calibration plots for CKB hard and soft ASCVD models after recalibration; Fig. S3 Observed vs. simulated probabilities of all events over 10 years; Fig. S4 GBD vs. simulated age-sex-specific all-cause mortality; Fig. S5 One-way sensitivity analyses for soft ASCVD model threshold of 18% vs. 19%; Fig. S6 One-way sensitivity analyses for hard ASCVD model threshold of 10% vs. 11%; Fig. S7 One-way sensitivity analyses for soft ASCVD model threshold of 13% vs. 14% in population aged 30–59 years; Fig. S8 Cost-utility acceptability curves for soft ASCVD threshold strategies in population aged 30–59 years; Fig. S9 One-way sensitivity analyses for hard ASCVD model threshold of 9% vs. 10% in population aged 30–59 years; Fig. S10 Cost-utility acceptability curves for hard ASCVD threshold strategies in population aged 30–59 years; Fig. S11 One-way sensitivity analyses for soft ASCVD model threshold of 20% vs. no treatment in population aged 60–75 years; Fig. S12 Cost-utility acceptability curves for soft ASCVD threshold strategies in population aged 60–75 years; Fig. S13 One-way sensitivity analyses for hard ASCVD model threshold of 15% vs. no treatment in population aged 60–75 years; Fig. S14 Cost-utility acceptability curves for hard ASCVD threshold strategies in population aged 60–75 years. Tables S1–S8. Table S1 Disease progression inputs used in the cost-utility model; Table S2 Baseline characteristics of participants with soft or hard ASCVD outcomes occurred during follow-up in CKB study; Table S3 Baseline characteristics of high-risk population defined by optimal thresholds for soft and hard ASCVD models; Table S4 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for hard ASCVD model by age; Table S5 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for soft ASCVD model by region; Table S6 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for hard ASCVD model by region; Table S7 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for soft ASCVD model by sex; Table S8 Cost-utility of ASCVD threshold strategies for hard ASCVD model by sex.

Figshare
Johns Hopkins University (US), Peking University (CN), University of Oxford (GB), China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment (CN)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 38%
Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.