Why the study?
CAD risk factors and subclinical pathophysiology begin in childhood, but identifying candidates for primordial prevention remains challenging.
Does PRS-guided prevention improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness for coronary artery disease in children?
Does PRS-guided prevention improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness for coronary artery disease in children?
Effect estimate: ARR 3.6%
PRS-guided CAD prevention in childhood is projected to be highly cost-effective, potentially preventing significant CAD events and yielding substantial economic returns.
May warrant PRS-guided CAD prevention in children; extends precision prevention modeling with high cost-effectiveness.
Risk factors and subclinical pathophysiology of coronary artery disease (CAD) begin in childhood, yet identifying candidates for primordial prevention remains challenging. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) provide a DNA-based risk marker from birth that can stratify children by lifetime CAD risk. We evaluated the potential clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of PRS-guided CAD prevention in children using health economic modeling. A Markov model compared PRS-guided prevention with standard prevention in a hypothetical group of 10,000 children. Children in the top 20% of PRS ( n = 2000) were assumed to receive behavioral interventions. Assuming a 10-year CAD incidence of 12% during adulthood among those in the top 20% of the PRS distribution and a conservative 30% relative risk reduction with preventive intervention, PRS-guided prevention was projected to prevent 72 CAD events among 2000 high-risk children (3.6% absolute event reduction), yielding a return on investment of 3614%. PRS enables early, targeted prevention, improving outcomes, and lowering lifetime costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bitar et al. (2026) studied Coronary artery disease (n=10,000). PRS-guided prevention vs. Standard care was evaluated on CAD events prevented (ARR 3.6%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: