Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 3, 2026
Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Cardiovascular risk scores do not account for the effect of treatment: a review
S M Liew1, J Doust, P Glasziou
1Department of Primary Care Medicine and Julius Center UM,University of Malaya, KualaLumpur, Malaysia. su.liew@phc.ox.ac.uk
Insights
This review found 21 cardiovascular risk scores, but most do not account for medications like statins or treatment changes. This limits their clinical use for predicting cardiovascular disease risk.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Preventive Medicine
- Biostatistics
Background:
- Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of mortality globally.
- Accurate assessment of cardiovascular risk is crucial for effective preventive strategies.
- Numerous cardiovascular risk scores exist, but their clinical applicability and limitations require evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the strengths and limitations of available cardiovascular risk scores.
- To assess their utility in determining the absolute risk of cardiovascular disease for clinicians.
Main Methods:
- A comprehensive review of cardiovascular risk scores was conducted.
- Searched Medline (1966-2009) using keywords 'cardiovascular', 'risk prediction', and 'cohort studies'.
- Included cohort studies of adults without prior cardiovascular disease, predicting 5-10 year absolute risk, usable by clinicians.
Main Results:
- Identified 21 cardiovascular risk scores from 18 papers out of 3536 reviewed.
- Cohort sizes varied significantly, from 4,372 to over 1.5 million participants.
- Significant heterogeneity existed in definitions, risk predictors, and outcome measures. Most scores did not account for medication use (e.g., statins, antihypertensives) or treatment drop-ins.
Conclusions:
- Current cardiovascular risk scores often fail to incorporate the impact of risk-factor-modifying drugs like statins.
- The exclusion of treatment effects and variations in study design complicate clinical decision-making.
- There is a need for risk scores derived from populations free from treatment bias to improve clinical utility.
Objective:
To compare the strengths and limitations of cardiovascular risk scores available for clinicians in assessing the global (absolute) risk of cardiovascular disease.
Design:
Review of cardiovascular risk scores.
Data Sources:
Medline (1966 to May 2009) using a mixture of MeSH terms and free text for the keywords 'cardiovascular', 'risk prediction' and 'cohort studies'.
Eligibility Criteria For Selecting Studies:
A study was eligible if it fulfilled the following criteria: (1) it was a cohort study of adults in the general population with no prior history of cardiovascular disease and not restricted by a disease condition; (2) the primary objective was the development of a cardiovascular risk score/equation that predicted an individual's absolute cardiovascular risk in 5-10 years; (3) the score could be used by a clinician to calculate the risk for an individual patient.
Results:
21 risk scores from 18 papers were identified from 3536 papers. Cohort size ranged from 4372 participants (SHS) to 1591209 records (QRISK2). More than half of the cardiovascular risk scores (11) were from studies with recruitment starting after 1980. Definitions and methods for measuring risk predictors and outcomes varied widely between scores. Fourteen cardiovascular risk scores reported data on prior treatment, but this was mainly limited to antihypertensive treatment. Only two studies reported prior use of lipid-lowering agents. None reported on prior use of platelet inhibitors or data on treatment drop-ins.
Conclusions:
The use of risk-factor-modifying drugs-for example, statins-and disease-modifying medication-for example, platelet inhibitors-was not accounted for. In addition, none of the risk scores addressed the effect of treatment drop-ins-that is, treatment started during the study period. Ideally, a risk score should be derived from a population free from treatment. The lack of accounting for treatment effect and the wide variation in study characteristics, predictors and outcomes causes difficulties in the use of cardiovascular risk scores for clinical treatment decision.
Related Concept Videos
01:26Atherosclerosis III: Management
01:18Cardiovascular Drugs: Classification based on Therapeutic Indications
01:25Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT
01:26Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
01:30Coronary Artery Disease I: Introduction
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...