ArticlePloS one2025
Cost-utility analysis of Coronary Artery Calcium screening to guide statin prescription among intermediate-risk patients in Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the cost-utility of Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) screening for primary prevention in Thai patients with intermediate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, compared to the current practice according to the ACC/AHA 2019 guideline recommendation without the use of a CAC score.
methodsA hybrid model combining a decision tree and a Markov model was constructed to compare costs and QALYs from a societal perspective. The model evaluated a target population of statin-naïve individuals aged 40-75 with intermediate CVD risk. We assessed the impact of statin initiation for primary prevention based on the ACC/AHA 2019 guideline with CAC screening compared to without CAC screening over a 35-year time horizon. The service costs and related household expenses were based on the Thai setting. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared against the official willingness-to-pay threshold of Thailand (160,000 THB, approximately 4,400 USD per QALY). Probabilistic and additional one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model and evaluate how variations in key assumptions impact the results. These analyses help determine the reliability of the findings by exploring the extent to which changes in input parameters influence the overall conclusions.
resultsThe CAC screening strategy required an incremental cost of 10,091 THB to gain 0.62 QALYs per person, resulting in an ICER of 16,308 THB per QALY gained. For the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at the official Thai threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 71% for CAC screening. Sensitivity analyses based on varying the effect of drug adherence, drug cost, incidence of CVD events, and the distribution of CAC scores demonstrated robust cost-effectiveness favouring CAC screening.
conclusionCAC screening strategy is cost-effective in the Thai context, especially when the cost of screening and high-potency statins is low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.