Reporting guidelines
inflammation, atherosclerosis, diabetes {fasting glucose, ’
CVD, HIV VIREMIA, INFLAMMATION, MAY, ATHEROSCLEROSIS
Figshare: SPIRIT checklist for “Effect of atorvastatin on subclinical atherosclerosis in virally-suppressed HIV-infected patients with CMV seropositivity: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial”.
Data are available under the terms of the

I agree that the number of patients included in the study may seem small, but it is sufficient considering it is a clinical trial with the highest quality of scientific evidence. The reasons for excluding patients over the age of 45 are not completely conclusive, but based on the available information, I believe the study can still be accepted for indexing. Moreover, this study provides valuable information on a topic with limited published researchIs the study design appropriate for the research question?PartlyIs the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?YesAre sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?YesAre the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?PartlyReviewer Expertise:NAI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
I have no further commentsIs the study design appropriate for the research question?PartlyIs the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?YesAre sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?YesAre the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?YesReviewer Expertise:HIVI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
This article by Yunihastuti et. al. is an interesting attempt to answer intriguing questions regarding CVD prevention in people co-infected with HIV and CMV with low-risk CVD, in a major hospital in Indonesia. The study protocol was extensive with numerous markers evaluations. But the relatively short duration of observations and the limited number of study subjects might have an effect on the results.  
My major concern is that judgment on sample size and duration of the follow-up needed to show the effect of Atorvastatin on subclinical atherosclerosis was based on assumption only. The investigators should have considered this more carefully, given the large number of variables involved.Other questions is regarding the study population. HIV-infected people still have ongoing low-level HIV viremia and low-level inflammation that exist even in virally-supressed persons. Why the investigators choose this population should be stated in the article.In the






 - Can you provide the clear definition of ‘stable ART’ is? - Please add the limit period of the VL result date in the screening process will it be qualified as sourced documents to enroll the subject. - Do you hold any extra screening exam regarding the exclusion conditions in the case of subject having no related sourced documents prior to the screening process? - Please provide further details about how you define the existence of each exclusion conditions within the potential subjects and what kind of sourced documents will be relied on (maybe you can add bracket form at each exclusion conditions bullets e.g., history of diabetes {fasting glucose >125mg/dL}).



 - Why did you choose those parameters used for the residual immune activation measurement among other parameters? - Please rephrase and eliminate the redundant words in the paragraph so it feels more clear and not repetitious.

 - Please use the same terminology in defining the study timeline. Which of the following is considered a baseline? The W-1 or W0? - Please use the same terminology in defining the study visit. Consistent with the unit whether it is using months or weeks.  
In the box titled "Excluded”, there were consisted of 2 bullets only (“not meeting inclusion criteria and decline to participate”). On the other hand, in the prior sub it was mentioned that there were certain exclusion conditions and I believe it should be reflected in the diagram. May you add another bullet in the box considering this.Please add any footnotes regarding any defined shortened terms used in the diagram.
Please add details about what laboratory examinations are done during the blood sample collection in each related study visit.I think it was more suitable to change the “Allocation” term into “Randomization”, thus the “Post-allocation” into “Post-randomization” and the “Enrollment” term into “Screening and Enrollment”.Is the study design appropriate for the research question?PartlyIs the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?YesAre sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?YesAre the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?YesReviewer Expertise:HIVI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.