Jorge M Luna1, Yeseon P Moon, Khin M Liu, Steven Spitalnik, Myunghee C Paik, Keun Cheung, Ralph L Sacco, Mitchell S V Elkind. 1. From the Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY (J.M.L., M.S.V.E.); Departments of Neurology (Y.P.M., M.S.V.E.) and Pathology (K.M.L., S.S.), Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; Division of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY (M.C.P., K.C.); Departments of Neurology, Epidemiology, and Human Genetics, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, FL (R.L.S.); and Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center, Columbia University, New York, NY (M.S.V.E.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a proinflammatory cytokine with known autoregulatory feedback mechanisms. We hypothesized that elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) relative to IL-6 confers an increased risk of ischemic stroke (IS), and low hsCRP relative to IL-6 a decreased risk, for individuals in the prospective, multiethnic, population-based Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS). METHODS: Serum hsCRP and IL-6 were measured in NOMAS participants at baseline. We created a trichotomized predictor based on the dominant biomarker in terms of quartiles: hsCRP-dominant, IL-6-dominant, and codominant groups. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between inflammatory biomarker group status and risk of incident IS. RESULTS: Of 3298 participants, both hsCRP and IL-6 were available in 1656 participants (mean follow-up, 7.8 years; 113 incident IS). The hsCRP-dominant group had increased risk of IS (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-4.41) and the IL-6-dominant group had decreased risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.82) when compared with the referent group, after adjusting for potential confounders. Model fit was improved using the inflammation-dominant construct, over either biomarker alone. CONCLUSIONS: In this multiethnic cohort, when hsCRP-quartile was higher than IL-6 quartile, IS risk was increased, and conversely when IL-6 quartiles were elevated relative to hsCRP, IS risk was decreased. Construct validity requires confirmation in other cohorts.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a proinflammatory cytokine with known autoregulatory feedback mechanisms. We hypothesized that elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) relative to IL-6 confers an increased risk of ischemic stroke (IS), and low hsCRP relative to IL-6 a decreased risk, for individuals in the prospective, multiethnic, population-based Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS). METHODS: Serum hsCRP and IL-6 were measured in NOMAS participants at baseline. We created a trichotomized predictor based on the dominant biomarker in terms of quartiles: hsCRP-dominant, IL-6-dominant, and codominant groups. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between inflammatory biomarker group status and risk of incident IS. RESULTS: Of 3298 participants, both hsCRP and IL-6 were available in 1656 participants (mean follow-up, 7.8 years; 113 incident IS). The hsCRP-dominant group had increased risk of IS (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-4.41) and the IL-6-dominant group had decreased risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.82) when compared with the referent group, after adjusting for potential confounders. Model fit was improved using the inflammation-dominant construct, over either biomarker alone. CONCLUSIONS: In this multiethnic cohort, when hsCRP-quartile was higher than IL-6 quartile, IS risk was increased, and conversely when IL-6 quartiles were elevated relative to hsCRP, IS risk was decreased. Construct validity requires confirmation in other cohorts.
Entities:
Keywords:
biomarkers; inflammation; ischemic stroke; prevention and control
Authors: Nancy S Jenny; Benjamin French; Alice M Arnold; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Mary Cushman; Paulo H M Chaves; Jingzhong Ding; Linda P Fried; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Dena E Rifkin; Mark J Sarnak; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: R L Sacco; B Boden-Albala; R Gan; X Chen; D E Kargman; S Shea; M C Paik; W A Hauser Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-02-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Eva Pardina; Roser Ferrer; Juan Antonio Baena-Fustegueras; Joaquín Rivero; Albert Lecube; Jose Manuel Fort; Víctor Vargas; Roberto Catalán; Julia Peinado-Onsurbe Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Aaron R Folsom; Lloyd E Chambless; Christie M Ballantyne; Josef Coresh; Gerardo Heiss; Kenneth K Wu; Eric Boerwinkle; Thomas H Mosley; Paul Sorlie; Guoqing Diao; A Richey Sharrett Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-07-10
Authors: Kei Kimizuka; Atsunori Nakao; Michael A Nalesnik; Anthony J Demetris; Takashi Uchiyama; Kris Ruppert; Mitchell P Fink; Donna B Stolz; Noriko Murase Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Susan A Everson-Rose; Nicholas S Roetker; Pamela L Lutsey; Kiarri N Kershaw; W T Longstreth; Ralph L Sacco; Ana V Diez Roux; Alvaro Alonso Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Amelia K Boehme; Leslie A McClure; Yu Zhang; Jorge M Luna; Oscar H Del Brutto; Oscar R Benavente; Mitchell S V Elkind Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Debora Kamin Mukaz; Neil A Zakai; Salvador Cruz-Flores; Louise D McCullough; Mary Cushman Journal: Stroke Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 7.914