Thank you for your considered post. The “proactive” evidence is, I am sorry to say, non-attributable. I got it in conversation from someone who, beyond any doubt, knows. I personally guarantee it to be true [not that that is much use to anyone!]. I got it in the context of discussing the potential market for bulk lab screening work.
My source did not discuss whether the proactive test applied to ischaemic or haemorrhagic strokes. Personally I would have thought haemorrhagic is less likely to be proactive than ischaemic. I have no idea of the time between positive test and incident – I have regretted failing to ask, as the implications could be large.
I accept your comment that my estimates painted the best possible picture – or I would if you had said best reasonable picture! The main uncertainty is the percentage of people presenting with a suspect stroke that actually have strokes. I took this at 41.5% - whereas with heart attack the figure is about 10%. If the stroke percentage was also to be 10% then, all other things being equal, this would increase the number of tests over fourfold.
BioSite’s own stroke test used 6 markers [selected from 35 tried]; my impression is that Proteome also use five or six – but I do not know which, and I think they investigated a very much larger number of proteins.
Primedia stock quotes
Primedia stock charts
Follow this thread
