Why the study?
How should cardiovascular risk assessment guide risk factor intervention strategies in low-intermediate risk primary prevention patients?
How should cardiovascular risk assessment guide risk factor intervention strategies in low-intermediate risk primary prevention patients?
Current risk scores and trial endpoints may be inadequate for guiding preventive strategies in low-moderate risk primary prevention populations.
Urges caution against sole reliance on existing scores for low-moderate risk decisions; leaves open validation of refined endpoints in future trials.
Cardiovascular risk management in the primary prevention population is impeded by the fact that risk scores do not identify properly a low-moderate risk population that could benefit from the use of preventive strategies. Current risk scores are further limited by their complexity and the lack of applicability to special patient populations and the real-life clinical setting, which deters their use. Clinical trials with risk factor interventions have been based on either a treat-to-target or fire-and-forget strategy and have used cardiovascular mortality or major events as their primary endpoint. These endpoints may not be appropriate for assessing cardiovascular benefit in low-moderate risk patients. Cardiovascular risk assessment should guide the strategy for risk factor intervention; however, this needs to be more clearly defined in low-intermediate risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Castro et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: