Cost-effectiveness of testing for CYP2C19 loss-of-function carriers following transient ischemic attack/minor stroke: A Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The CHANCE-2 study compared 3 weeks of aspirin–ticagrelor to aspirin–clopidogrel in CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) allele carriers following a transient ischemic attack (TIA)/minor stroke and demonstrated a modestly lower risk of stroke recurrence with aspirin–ticagrelor. This stroke protection was largely for minor stroke and came at an increased risk of bleeding. The cost-effectiveness of implementing testing for LOF allele status to personalize antiplatelet regimen for secondary stroke prevention after a TIA/minor stroke in the Canadian health care context is unknown.Methods:Cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic Markov cohort model with a lifetime horizon was performed to determine the costs and health benefits of testing for LOF allele status compared with no testing (current standard of care). The population of interest was patients living in Canada who suffered a TIA/minor stroke. Outcomes of interest were life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, costs (reported in 2022 Canadian dollars), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We adopted the perspective of the Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Ministries of Health and used a 1.5% annual discount rate. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty.Results:Compared to standard of care, LOF allele testing leads to 0.14 LYG (undiscounted), 0.12 QALYs gained (undiscounted), and additional lifetime costs of CAD$432 (discounted) per patient. The ICER of the LOF allele testing strategy is CAD$4310 per QALY gained compared with standard of care. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that LOF allele testing was cost-effective in more than 99.99% of simulations using a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD$50,000 per QALY.Conclusion:Based on available evidence, testing for LOF allele followed by short duration 3 weeks of aspirin–ticagrelor compared to standard-of-care aspirin–clopidogrel can lead to prolonged life and improved quality of life and can be considered very cost-effective when compared with other well-accepted technologies in health and medicine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".