SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein targeted serology test results and their association with subsequent COVID-19-related outcomes.

Importance: In the absence of evidence of clinical utility, the United States' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not currently recommend the assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike-protein antibody levels. Clinicians and their patients, especially immunocompromised patients, may benefit from an adjunctive objective clinical laboratory measure of risk, using SARS-CoV-2 serology. Objective: The aim of this study is to estimate the association between SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein targeted antibody levels and clinically relevant outcomes overall and among clinically relevant subgroups, such as vaccine and immunocompetency statuses. Design: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using laboratory-based data containing SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing results, as well as medical and pharmacy claim data. SARS-CoV-2 testing was performed by two large United States-based reference clinical laboratories, Labcorp® and Quest Diagnostics, and was linked to medical insurance claims, including vaccination receipt, through the HealthVerity Marketplace. Follow-up for outcomes began after each eligible individual's first SARS-CoV-2 semiquantitative spike-protein targeted antibody test, from 16 November 2020 to 30 December 2021. Exposures: Exposure is defined as having SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein targeted antibody testing. Main outcomes and measures: Study outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection and a serious composite outcome (hospitalization with an associated SARS-CoV-2 infection or all-cause death). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Propensity score matching was used for confounding covariate control. Results: In total, 143,091 (73.2%) and 52,355 (26.8%) eligible individuals had detectable and non-detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein targeted antibodies, respectively. In the overall population, having detectable vs. non-detectable antibodies was associated with an estimated 44% relative reduction in SARS-CoV-2 subsequent infection risk (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59) and an 80% relative reduction in the risk of serious composite outcomes (HR 0.20; 95% CI 0.15-0.26). Relative risk reductions were observed across subgroups, including among immunocompromised persons. Conclusion and relevance: Individuals with detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein targeted antibody levels had fewer associated subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infections and serious adverse clinical outcomes. Policymakers and clinicians may find SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein targeted serology testing to be a useful adjunct in counseling patients with non-detectable antibody levels about adverse risks and reinforcing appropriate actions to mitigate such risks.

Risk of and duration of protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection assessed with real-world data.

This retrospective observational study aimed to gain a better understanding of the protective duration of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against reinfection. The objectives were two-fold: to assess the durability of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among initially unvaccinated individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to evaluate the crude SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rate and associated risk factors. During the pandemic era time period from February 29, 2020, through April 30, 2021, 144,678,382 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic or antibody test results were studied. Rates of reinfection among index-positive individuals were compared to rates of infection among index-negative individuals. Factors associated with reinfection were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. For both objectives, the outcome was a subsequent positive molecular diagnostic test result. Consistent with prior findings, the risk of reinfection among index-positive individuals was 87% lower than the risk of infection among index-negative individuals. The duration of protection against reinfection was stable over the median 5 months and up to 1-year follow-up interval. Factors associated with an increased reinfection risk included older age, comorbid immunologic conditions, and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers had a decreased reinfection risk. This large US population-based study suggests that infection induced immunity is durable for variants circulating pre-Delta predominance.

Statin Use and Severe Acute Liver Injury Among Patients with Elevated Alanine Aminotransferase.

Introduction: While serious liver injury among statin users is extremely rare, baseline liver enzyme testing is still recommended prior to initiating therapy. The benefit of such screening should be reevaluated based on empirical evidence. This study compared the risk of severe acute liver injury (SALI) between statin initiators with an elevated ALT (>35U/L) matched to statin initiators with a normal ALT level (≤35U/L). Statin initiators with an elevated ALT were additionally compared against matched non-users. Methods: The study created cohorts from Optum and MarketScan claims data. Exposed and comparison cohorts were propensity score (PS) matched in each dataset and findings were pooled using meta-analysis. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), and a prespecified non-inferiority margin for SALI was set at a HR of 1.8. Results: 232,889 patients with elevated ALT were PS-matched to 232,889 with normal ALT level. The overall incidence rate of SALI was about 19/100,000 person-years among statin initiators. Statin initiators with elevated ALT had no meaningfully increased risk of SALI compared to those with normal ALT (HR=1.15; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.75). Comparing statin initiators with non-initiators with elevated ALT values equally yielded no increased risk (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.11). Conclusion: In this large population-based study, SALI in statin users was rare. Importantly, the results showed no evidence that baseline ALT status is a reliable indicator for an increased risk of severe liver injury among statin initiators.

Duration of Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection and Associated Risk of Reinfection Assessed with Real-World Data.

IMPORTANCE: Better understanding of the protective duration of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against reinfection is needed. OBJECTIVE: Primary: To assess the durability of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among initially unvaccinated individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary: Evaluate the crude SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rate and associated characteristics. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective observational study of HealthVerity data among 144,678,382 individuals, during the pandemic era through April 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals studied had SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic or antibody index test results from February 29 through December 9, 2020, with ≥365 days of pre-index continuous closed medical enrollment, claims, or electronic health record activity. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of reinfection among index-positive individuals were compared to rates of infection among index-negative individuals. Factors associated with reinfection were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. For both objectives, the outcome was a subsequent positive molecular diagnostic test result. RESULTS: Among 22,786,982 individuals with index SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test data (2,023,341 index positive), the crude rate of reinfection during follow-up was significantly lower (9.89/1,000-person years) than that of primary infection (78.39/1,000 person years). Consistent with prior findings, the risk of reinfection among index-positive individuals was 87% lower than the risk of infection among index-negative individuals (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.13, 0.13). The cumulative incidence of reinfection among index-positive individuals and infection among index-negative individuals was 0.85% (95% CI: 0.82%, 0.88%) and 6.2% (95% CI: 6.1%, 6.3%), respectively, over follow-up of 375 days. The duration of protection against reinfection was stable over the median 5 months and up to 1-year follow-up interval. Factors associated with an increased reinfection risk included older age, comorbid immunologic conditions, and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers had a decreased reinfection risk. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This large US population-based study demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is uncommon among individuals with laboratory evidence of a previous infection. Protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is stable up to one year. Reinfection risk was primarily associated with age 85+ years, comorbid immunologic conditions and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers demonstrated a decreased reinfection risk. These findings suggest that infection induced immunity is durable for variants circulating prior to Delta. KEY POINTS: Question: How long does prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection?Finding: Among >22 million individuals tested February 2020 through April 2021, the relative risk of reinfection among those with prior infection was 87% lower than the risk of infection among individuals without prior infection. This protection was durable for up to a year. Factors associated with increased likelihood of reinfection included older age (85+ years), comorbid immunologic conditions, and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers had lower risk.Meaning: Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provides a durable, high relative degree of protection against reinfection.

Real-world reproducibility study characterizing patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma using Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a UK-based electronic health records database.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the reproducibility of a study characterizing newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients within an electronic health records (EHR) database using different analytic tools. METHODS: We reproduced the findings of a descriptive cohort study using an iterative two-phase approach. In Phase I, a common protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP) were implemented by independent investigators using the Aetion Evidence Platform® (AEP), a rapid-cycle analytics tool, and SAS statistical software as a gold standard for statistical analyses. Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) dataset, the study included patients newly diagnosed with MM within primary care setting and assessed baseline demographics, conditions, drug exposure, and laboratory procedures. Phase II incorporated analysis revisions based on our initial comparison of the Phase I findings. Reproducibility of findings was evaluate by calculating the match rate and absolute difference in prevalence between the SAS and AEP study results. RESULTS: Phase I yielded slightly discrepant results, prompting amendments to SAP to add more clarity to operational decisions. After detailed specification of data and operational choices, exact concordance was achieved for the number of eligible patients (N = 2646), demographics, comorbidities (i.e., osteopenia, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease [CVD], and hypertension), bone pain, skeletal-related events, drug exposure, and laboratory investigations in the Phase II analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this reproducibility study, a rapid-cycle analytics tool and traditional statistical software achieved near-exact findings after detailed specification of data and operational choices. Transparency and communication of the study design, operational and analytical choices between independent investigators were critical to achieve this reproducibility.

Conserved cell types with divergent features in human versus mouse cortex.

Elucidating the cellular architecture of the human cerebral cortex is central to understanding our cognitive abilities and susceptibility to disease. Here we used single-nucleus RNA-sequencing analysis to perform a comprehensive study of cell types in the middle temporal gyrus of human cortex. We identified a highly diverse set of excitatory and inhibitory neuron types that are mostly sparse, with excitatory types being less layer-restricted than expected. Comparison to similar mouse cortex single-cell RNA-sequencing datasets revealed a surprisingly well-conserved cellular architecture that enables matching of homologous types and predictions of properties of human cell types. Despite this general conservation, we also found extensive differences between homologous human and mouse cell types, including marked alterations in proportions, laminar distributions, gene expression and morphology. These species-specific features emphasize the importance of directly studying human brain.

Healthcare utilization and costs for patients initiating Dabigatran or Warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) such as dabigatran, when compared to warfarin, have been shown to potentially reduce the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) together with lower healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and similar total costs. This study expands on previous work by comparing HCRU and costs for patients newly diagnosed with NVAF and newly initiated on dabigatran or warfarin, and is the first study specifically in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using data from administrative health care claims during the study period 01/01/2010-12/31/2012. Cox regression analyses were used to compare all-cause risk of first hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. Medical, pharmacy, and total costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were compared between dabigatran and warfarin users. RESULTS: A total of 1110 patients initiated on dabigatran were propensity score-matched with corresponding patients initiated on warfarin. The mean number of hospitalizations (0.92 vs. 1.13, P = 0.012), ER visits (1.32 vs. 1.56, P < 0.01), office visits (21.43 vs. 29.41; P < 0.01), and outpatient visits (10.86 vs. 22.02; P < 0.01) were lower among dabigatran compared to warfarin users. Patients initiated on dabigatran had significantly lower risk of first all-cause ER visits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.98] compared to those initiated on warfarin. Adjusted mean pharmacy costs PPPM were significantly greater for dabigatran users ($510 vs. $250, P < 0.001); however, mean medical costs PPPM ($1912 vs. $1956, P = 0.55) and mean total costs PPPM ($2381 vs. $2183, P = 0.10) were not significantly different compared to warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran users had significantly lower HCRU compared to warfarin users. In addition, dabigatran users had lower risk of all-cause ER visits. Despite higher pharmacy costs, the two cohorts did not differ significantly in medical or total all-cause costs.

"Act on Threes" Paradigm for Treatment Intensification of Type 2 Diabetes in Managed Care: Results of a Randomized Controlled Study with an Educational Intervention Targeting Improved Glycemic Control.

BACKGROUND: Clinical inertia, which has been defined as the recognition of a problem with a patient's management but failing to act, is a concern in type 2 diabetes (T2D) because it places the patient at risk of diabetes-related complications. Despite managed care organizations making significant investment in this area, little is known about the impact of educational programs aimed at aligning patients and their physicians with diabetes guidelines and thus overcoming clinical inertia. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of an educational intervention specifically designed to align patients and their physicians with 2012 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines on glycated hemoglobin (A1c) testing frequency and insulin initiation. METHODS: The "Act on Threes" educational intervention was a 12-month, randomized controlled prospective study that included Medicare Advantage patients aged 18-85 years with T2D, who received ≥ 3 oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) and/or had A1c not at goal and/or had no recent A1c evaluation over 12 months, as identified through the analysis of administrative claims data (May 1, 2011-April 30, 2013) from the Humana database. Identified patients were randomized 3:1 to receive the Act on Threes educational intervention in conjunction with standard care (intervention group) or standard care alone (control group). For the educational intervention, patients and physicians were simultaneously mailed general and targeted information aimed at aligning them to 3 vital aspects of A1c control: timely measurement of A1c every 3 months; timely treatment intensification to meet A1c goals with treatment intensification every 3 months if A1c is not at goal; and insulin initiation when appropriate, including patients receiving ≥ 3 OADs with A1c not at goal. Control patients were only enrolled if the treating physician was not involved in the care of any patients in the intervention group. The primary outcome measures were A1c testing frequency based on the ADA standard for compliance of ≥ 2 tests per year and insulin initiation in the 12-month postintervention period. A1c levels were evaluated for the subgroup of patients with available A1c measurements in the pre- and postintervention periods. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze differences between the intervention and control groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify determinants of insulin initiation in the full study cohort. RESULTS: 6,243 patients (mean age 70 years; 43.5% female) were identified: 4,555 were randomized to the intervention group and 1,688 to the control group. The percentage of patients with ≥ 2 A1c tests per year was not significantly different postintervention for patients in the intervention and control groups (47.7% vs. 46.8%, respectively; P = 0.995). Intriguingly, the frequency of A1c testing increased significantly from pre- to postintervention in the intervention and control groups. Change in A1c level from pre- to postintervention was also similar for the 2 groups (P = 0.240). A similar percentage of patients in the intervention and control groups initiated insulin during the postintervention period (6.3% vs. 7.6%, respectively; P = 0.059). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled study demonstrated that, compared with standard care, the Act on Threes educational intervention combined with standard care did not result in any significant differences in the frequency of A1c testing or in the initiation of insulin in patients with T2D. These findings are in contrast to uncontrolled comparative studies showing significant improvements in outcomes postintervention and reinforce the importance of study design in evaluating the effectiveness of educational programs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi U.S. Reynolds, Davis, Kamble, and Uribe are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, which was contracted by Sanofi U.S. to conduct, publish, and present this study. Bieszk and Wei are employees of Sanofi U.S. Reynolds and Uribe provided expertise and key clinical insights for the study design and methodology, provided interpretations of the data, contributed to the discussion, and reviewed the manuscript. Bieszk and Wei codeveloped the study design, researched data, contributed to discussion, and reviewed the manuscript. Davis and Kamble collected the data, provided study design, clinical insights, statistical and analytic reflections of the data, drafted the study reports, and reviewed the manuscript. All authors had full access to all the data in the study. Reynolds is the guarantor of this work and, as such, takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Writing/editorial support in the preparation of this manuscript, which was funded by Sanofi U.S., was provided by Rosalie Gadiot, PhD, of Excerpta Medica, who wrote the initial draft of the manuscript.

A common data model to assess cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality in atrial fibrillation patients using administrative claims and medical records.

PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) is frequently associated with cardiovascular comorbidities. Observational health care databases are commonly used for research purposes in studies of quality of care, health economics, outcomes research, drug safety, and epidemiology. This retrospective cohort study applied a common data model to administrative claims data (Truven Health Analytics MarketScan(®) claims databases [MS-Claims]) and electronic medical records data (Geisinger Health System's MedMining electronic medical record database [MG-EMR]) to examine the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality in relation to clinical risk factors in recent-onset AF and to assess the consistency of analyses for each data source. METHODS: Cohorts of patients with newly diagnosed AF (n=105,262 [MS-Claims] and n=3,919 [MG-EMR]) and demographically similar patients without AF (n=105,262 [MS-Claims] and n=3,872 [MG-EMR]) were followed from the qualifying AF diagnosis until cardiovascular hospitalization, death, database disenrollment, or study completion. A common data model standardized the data in structure, format, content, and nomenclature to allow for systematic assessment and comparison of outcomes from two disparate data sets. RESULTS: In both databases, AF patients had greater overall baseline comorbidity and higher incidence rates of cardiovascular hospitalization (threefold higher) and all-cause mortality (46% higher) than non-AF patients. For AF patients, incidence rates of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality were increased by the concomitant presence of coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke at baseline. Overall, the pattern of cardiovascular hospitalization in the MS-Claims database was similar to that in the MG-EMR database. Compared with the MS-Claims database, the use of cardiovascular medications and the capture of certain comorbidities among AF patients appeared to be higher in the MG-EMR data set. CONCLUSION: Similar standardized analyses across EMR and Claims databases were consistent in the association of AF with acute morbidity and an increased risk of all-cause mortality. Areas of inconsistency were due to differences in underlying population demographics and cardiovascular risks and completeness of certain data fields.

Evaluation of a software system for estimating planned dose error in patients, based on planar IMRT QA measurements.

BACKGROUND: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dosimetry verification is routinely conducted via integrated or individual field dosimetry using film or a matrix of detectors. Techniques and software systems are commercially available which use individual field dosimetry measurements as input into algorithms that estimate 3D patient dose distributions on CT scan derived target volumes and organs at risk (OARs), thus allowing direct dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis vs. treatment planning system (TPS) DVH. The purpose of this work is to present a systematic benchmarking technique to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of such a software system. METHODS: A MapCheck2 diode array and 3DVH™ software from Sun Nuclear were used for this study. Delivered planar dose was measured with the diode array as an input to 3DVH™ software that was used to estimate the 3D dose matrix. Accuracy of the output of 3DVH™ is tested by comparing measured planar doses over a range of depths to the same planes reconstructed by 3DVH™. Different fields from complex IMRT cases were selected and examined in this study. The sensitivity to depth of measurement was evaluated. RESULTS: The Gamma Index analysis, comparing calculated 3D dose with measured 3D dose with 2% and 2mm distance-to-agreement (DTA) criteria returned a pass rate of > 90% for all patient cases calculated by the treatment planning system and it returned a pass rate of > 96% in 9 out of 10 cases calculated by 3DVH™. Extracted computed dose planes with 3DVH™ software at different depths in the flat phantom passed all gamma evaluation analyses when compared to measured planes at different depths using MapCheck2. CONCLUSIONS: Studying complex head and neck IMRT fields, it was shown that the 3D dose distribution predicted by the planned dose perturbation (PDP) algorithm is both accurate and consistent.

The MMPI-2-RF Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5-RF) scales: development and validity research.

This article describes the development, internal psychometric, and external validation studies on scales designed to measure the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) from MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) items. Diverse and comprehensive data sets, representing various clinical and nonclinical populations, were classified into development and validation research samples. Item selection, retention, and exclusion procedures are detailed. The final set of PSY-5-RF scales contain 104 items, with no item overlap between scales (same as the original MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales), and no item overlap with the Demoralization scale. Internal consistency estimates are comparable to the longer MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales. Appropriate convergent and discriminant validity findings utilizing various self-report, collateral rating, and record review data are reported and discussed. A particular emphasis is offered for the unique aspects of the PSY-5 model: psychoticism and disconstraint. The findings are connected to the broader PSY-5 literature and the recommended review of systems (Harkness, Reynolds, & Lilienfeld, this issue) presented in this series of articles.

A review of systems for psychology and psychiatry: adaptive systems, personality psychopathology five (PSY-5), and the DSM-5.

We outline a crisis in clinical description, in which atheoretical categorical descriptors, as in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), has turned focus away from the obvious: evolved major adaptive systems. Adaptive systems, at the core of a medical review of systems (ROS), allow models of pathology to be layered over an understanding of systems as they normally function. We argue that clinical psychology and psychiatry would develop more programmatically by incorporating 5 systems evolved for adaptation to the external environment: reality modeling for action, short-term danger detection, long-term cost-benefit projection, resource acquisition, and agenda protection. These systems, although not exhaustive, coincide with great historical issues in psychology, psychopathology, and individual differences. Readers of this journal should be interested in this approach because personality is seen as a relatively stable property of these systems. Thus, an essential starting point in ROS-based clinical description involves personality assessment. But this approach also places demands on scientist-practitioners to integrate across sciences. An ROS promotes theories that are (a) compositional, answering the question: What elements comprise the system?; (b) dynamic, answering: How do the elements and other systems interact?; and (c) developmental: How do systems change over time? The proposed ROS corresponds well with the National Institute of Mental Health's recent research domain criteria (RDoC) approach. We urge that in the RDoC approach, measurement variables should be treated as falsifiable and theory-laden markers, not unfalsifiable criteria. We argue that our proposed ROS promotes integration across sciences, rather than fostering the isolation of sciences allowed by atheoretical observation terms, as in the DSM.

An invisible college view of the DSM-5 personality disorder classification.

The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group released the final proposed changes for the upcoming manual in May 2012. The proposal, located at www.dsm5.org , included a hybrid dimensional/categorical method of diagnosing personality disorders. This brief article examines the reference section of the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal rationale (American Psychiatric Association, 2012). The authors counted the number of authors and the coauthorships; coauthorship patterns were then examined and diagramed. The data suggested that a group of researchers involved with the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS) were central to the hybrid classification created by the DSM-5 work group.

The use of registered nurses to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy procedures in ontario: a cost minimization analysis.

RATIONALE: Rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) are on the rise in Canada. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) is an initial screening test for CRC primarily used in adults aged 50 years and older at average risk for the disease. Physicians and registered nurses have been shown to have the same effectiveness in performing a FS procedure. This paper presents an analysis of the use of registered nurses (RN) compared to physicians in Ontario to assess costs to the healthcare system. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether FS performed by RNs is a less costly alternative to increase access to CRC screening capacity in Ontario. METHODOLOGY: A cost minimization analysis was conducted from a health system perspective. DISCUSSION: RN-performed FS is a viable alternative for increasing CRC screening capacity in Ontario. Remuneration schedules for on-call physicians must be taken into consideration if policies are developed for the implementation of RN screening procedures. RESULTS: The findings suggest that the use of RNs may be cost saving compared to physician-performed FS procedures, depending on physician remuneration.

CONTEXTE : Au Canada, les taux de cancer colorectal (CCR) sont à la hausse. La sigmoïdoscopie flexible (SF) est un test initial de dépistage du CCR principalement utilisé chez les adultes de 50 ans et plus qui présentent un risque moyen de développer la maladie. Il a été démontré que les médecins et les infirmières autorisées présentent la même efficacité pour effectuer les procédés de FS. Cet article présente une analyse de comparaison entre les infirmière autorisées et les médecins en Ontario afin d'en évaluer les coûts pour le système de santé. OBJECTIFS : Évaluer dans quelle mesure la SF effectuée par les infirmières autorisées est un choix moins coûteux pour accroître l'accès au dépistage du CCR en Ontario. MÉTHODOLOGIE : Une analyse de minimisation des coûts a été effectuée selon l'angle du système de santé. DISCUSSION : La FS effectuée par les infirmières autorisées afin d'accroître les capacités de dépistage du CCR en Ontario est une option viable. Les barèmes de rémunération des médecins sur appel doivent être reconsidérés si on souhaite élaborer des politiques de mise en place de procédés de dépistage par les infirmières autorisées. RÉSULTATS : Les résultats font voir que, par rapport aux médecins, l'utilisation des infirmières autorisées pour effectuer les procédés de SF peut permettre des économies, dépendamment de la rémunération des médecins.