As Doctor Qadgop noted, in the absence of symptoms there is not much utility in doing those types of scans. Along the lines of what you said, however, there is good evidence that showing patients their calcium score scans or CTA coronary scans increases statin adherence, most likely exactly for the reason you alluded to.
Thank you!
I remember seeing xanthomas and xanthelasmas on people all the time, although I didn’t know what they were called or what they were. You don’t see as much of that nowadays.
Sometimes they can be subtle, like when they are on the hand. We’re they once very common?
I read today a somewhat out there book by an expert on Alzheimer’s disease. He thought statins used to further lower normal levels of cholesterol increased the rate of dementias. I don’t know how true this is; will have to look into it.
A quick review shows the issue to be controversial. Several studies show statins decrease dementia risk and are neuroprotectibve; some studies do not show much effect. Only a few show statins increase risk.
If any Dopers know more about this than I do, please discuss your thoughts.
I’m just going to say that when I worked at the pharmacy that serviced nursing homes, I was horrified at how many people were obviously in late-stage dementia, and yet they still got cholesterol meds.
It’s not the I know more, it’s that I have thoughts. 
Your body actually does need cholesterol. It’s used for a lot of things. The problem is usually seen as too much cholesterol, which can be bad. That’s true of a lot of needed things, like salt or potassium or protein or iron or sugar… all of which can cause problems (even death in some cases) if in excess.
So… if you lower cholesterol below what the body actually needs to function properly then sure, I could see it causing problems. Since cholesterol has a vital use for nerves, including the central nervous system, it wouldn’t surprise me if cholesterol that was too low could start causing serious problems. It’s just that cholesterol that’s too low isn’t seen very often. I think the most common cause might be starvation, which is not a problem seen often in the West these days.
The tough part is proving it.
As I said above cholesterol is needed to make cell membranes, steroids and other hormones.
I’m not sure anyone truly knows what LDL cholesterol level is too low after treatment with statins (and not just naturally), but the author (Bredesen) suggested 150. However, he also recommended so many esoteric tests and supplements of dubious value it is hard to fit me to take him seriously, despite being a recognized expert.
Still, he is right the issue is not definitively settled.
It would be almost impossible for a person to have an overall cholesterol level that’s too low, and if they did, most likely they would be in liver failure, and their cholesterol would be the least of their problems.
The current thinking is that there is essentially no lower limit on LDL lowering, and some non-American medical associations actually recommend much stricter targets than what is currently in the US guidelines. Population/retrospective studies have shows a general lower incidence of dementia for patients who take statins, likely due to the lower risk of ischemic vascular disease. Like any med, there is good and bad to it, but overall the benefit has far outweighed the downsides, both known and theoretical.