There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores  affect CVD events .
Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm .
BACKGROUND The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention .
Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools , or CVD risk scores , have attracted considerable attention , their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes , risk factor levels , preventive medication prescribing , and health behaviours .
Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy: the CHECK-UP study: a randomized controlled trial.
BACKGROUND Despite increasing evidence that treating dyslipidemia reduces cardiovascular events , many patients do not achieve recommended lipid targets . METHODS To determine whether showing physicians and patients the patient 's calculated coronary risk can improve the effectiveness of treating dyslipidemia in a primary care setting , patients were  r and omized  to receive usual care or ongoing feedback regarding their calculated coronary risk and the change in this risk after lifestyle changes , pharmacotherapy , or both to treat dyslipidemia . Outcomes , based on intention-to-treat analysis , included changes in blood lipid levels , coronary risk , and the frequency of reaching lipid targets . RESULTS Two hundred thirty primary care physicians enrolled 3,053 patients . After 12 months of follow-up , 2,687 patients ( 88.0 % ) remained in the study . After adjustment for baseline lipid values , significantly greater mean reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio were observed in patients receiving risk profiles ( 51.2 mg/dL [ to convert to millimoles per liter , multiply by 0.0259 ] and 1.5 , respectively ) vs usual care ( 48.0 mg/dL and 1.3 , respectively ) , but the differences were small ( -3.3 mg/dL ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , -5.4 to -1.1 mg/dL ; and -0.1 ; 95 % CI , -0.2 to -0.1 , respectively ) . Patients in the risk profile group were also more likely to reach lipid targets ( odds ratio , 1.26 ; 95 % CI , 1.07 to 1.48 ) . A significant dose-response effect was also noted when the impact of the risk profile was stronger in those with worse profiles . CONCLUSIONS Discussing coronary risk with the patient is associated with a small but measurable improvement in the efficacy of lipid therapy . The value of incorporating risk assessment in preventive care should be further evaluated
There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores  affect CVD events .
Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm .
BACKGROUND The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention .
Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools , or CVD risk scores , have attracted considerable attention , their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes , risk factor levels , preventive medication prescribing , and health behaviours .