Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .
Estimating the population impact of screening strategies for identifying and treating people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: modelling study
Objective To estimate the potential population impact of different screening strategies for identifying and treating people at high risk of cardiovascular disease , including strategies using routine data for cardiovascular risk stratification , in light of the UK government ’s recommended national strategy to screen all adults aged 40 - 74 for cardiovascular risk . Design Modelling study using data from a prospect i ve cohort , EPIC-Norfolk ( European Prospect i ve Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk ) . Setting An English county . Participants 16 970 men and women aged 40 - 74 and free from cardiovascular disease and diabetes at baseline . Main outcome measures The main outcomes were the population attributable fraction , the number needed to screen to prevent one new case of cardiovascular disease , the number needed to treat to prevent one new case of cardiovascular disease , and the number of new cardiovascular events that could be prevented . Relative risk reductions for estimated treatment effects were derived from meta-analyses of clinical trials or guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . Results 1362 cardiovascular events occurred over 183 586 person years of follow-up . Compared with the recommended government strategy , a stepwise screening approach using a simple risk score incorporating routine data could prevent a similar number ( lower to upper estimates ) of new cardiovascular events annually in the United Kingdom ( 26 789 , 20 778 to 36 239 ) and 25 134 ( 19 450 to 34 134 ) , respectively ) but requiring only 60 % of the population to be invited to attend a vascular risk assessment . A similar number of cardiovascular events ( 25 016 , 19 563 to 33 372 ) could also be prevented by inviting everyone aged 50 - 74 for a vascular assessment . Using a participant completed Finnish diabetes risk score question naire or anthropometric cut-off points for risk prestratification was less effective . Conclusions Compared with the UK government ’s recommended national strategy to screen all adults aged 40 - 74 for cardiovascular risk , an approach using routine data for cardiovascular risk stratification before inviting people at high risk for a vascular risk assessment may be similarly effective at preventing new cases of cardiovascular disease , with potential cost savings
Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .