Z-J Wu1, J-L He, R-Q Wei, B Liu, X Lin, J Guan, Y-B Lan. 1. Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Neurosurgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, He Di Rd. #71, Nanning, 530021, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This study systematically reviews prospective cohort studies evaluating the relationship between C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations and subsequent fracture risk. The positive association cannot completely explain the existing evidence, and further studies are needed to demonstrate the shape of the association. INTRODUCTION: We aimed to perform a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of published prospective studies evaluating associations of high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) levels with fracture risk in general populations. METHODS: We identified relevant studies by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from their inception to May 20, 2014. We included published prospective studies evaluating the associations of hs-CRP levels with risk of fracture in general populations. Two reviewers working independently abstracted the data. RESULTS: Eight prospective cohort studies involving 34,840 participants and 3,407 incident fracture events were eligible for the present analyses. A meta-analysis of six prospective studies showed that the overall risk for incident fracture in a comparison of individuals in the top tertile with those in the bottom tertile of baseline hs-CRP levels was 2.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-3.05, I(2) = 62.3%]. The moderate heterogeneous disappeared when one study was excluded. However, the remaining two studies reported inconsistent results. One study with the biggest sample size showed a U-shaped association for CRP and fracture risk (the association was positive when CRP > 1 mg/L). Similarly, another study reported that per doubling of CRP was positive only when CRP > 3 mg/L. CONCLUSION: In summary, the present analysis showed that the relationship between CRP concentrations and subsequent fracture risk is still inconsistent. The positive association cannot completely explain the existing evidence, and further larger prospective cohorts with more power are needed to demonstrate the shape of the association, especially for the relatively low CRP concentrations, such as less than 3 mg/L.
UNLABELLED: This study systematically reviews prospective cohort studies evaluating the relationship between C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations and subsequent fracture risk. The positive association cannot completely explain the existing evidence, and further studies are needed to demonstrate the shape of the association. INTRODUCTION: We aimed to perform a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of published prospective studies evaluating associations of high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) levels with fracture risk in general populations. METHODS: We identified relevant studies by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from their inception to May 20, 2014. We included published prospective studies evaluating the associations of hs-CRP levels with risk of fracture in general populations. Two reviewers working independently abstracted the data. RESULTS: Eight prospective cohort studies involving 34,840 participants and 3,407 incident fracture events were eligible for the present analyses. A meta-analysis of six prospective studies showed that the overall risk for incident fracture in a comparison of individuals in the top tertile with those in the bottom tertile of baseline hs-CRP levels was 2.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-3.05, I(2) = 62.3%]. The moderate heterogeneous disappeared when one study was excluded. However, the remaining two studies reported inconsistent results. One study with the biggest sample size showed a U-shaped association for CRP and fracture risk (the association was positive when CRP > 1 mg/L). Similarly, another study reported that per doubling of CRP was positive only when CRP > 3 mg/L. CONCLUSION: In summary, the present analysis showed that the relationship between CRP concentrations and subsequent fracture risk is still inconsistent. The positive association cannot completely explain the existing evidence, and further larger prospective cohorts with more power are needed to demonstrate the shape of the association, especially for the relatively low CRP concentrations, such as less than 3 mg/L.
Authors: Julie A Pasco; Mark A Kotowicz; Margaret J Henry; Geoffrey C Nicholson; Heather J Spilsbury; Jeffrey D Box; Hans G Schneider Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M A C van der Weijden; I E van der Horst-Bruinsma; J C van Denderen; B A C Dijkmans; M W Heymans; W F Lems Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-09-17 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Georg Schett; Stefan Kiechl; Siegfried Weger; Angelo Pederiva; Agnes Mayr; Manuele Petrangeli; Friedrich Oberhollenzer; Rolando Lorenzini; Kurt Redlich; Roland Axmann; Jochen Zwerina; Johann Willeit Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006 Dec 11-25
Authors: Shinya Ishii; Jane A Cauley; Gail A Greendale; Carolyn J Crandall; Michelle E Danielson; Yasuyoshi Ouchi; Arun S Karlamangla Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Stuart H Ralston; André G Uitterlinden; Maria Luisa Brandi; Susana Balcells; Bente L Langdahl; Paul Lips; Roman Lorenc; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch; Serena Scollen; Mariona Bustamante; Lise Bjerre Husted; Alisoun H Carey; Adolfo Diez-Perez; Alison M Dunning; Alberto Falchetti; Elzbieta Karczmarewicz; Marcin Kruk; Johannes P T M van Leeuwen; Joyce B J van Meurs; Jon Mangion; Fiona E A McGuigan; Leonardo Mellibovsky; Francesca del Monte; Huibert A P Pols; Jonathan Reeve; David M Reid; Wilfried Renner; Fernando Rivadeneira; Natasja M van Schoor; Rachael E Sherlock; John P A Ioannidis Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2006-02-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: S Bours; F de Vries; J P W van den Bergh; A Lalmohamed; T P van Staa; H G M Leufkens; P P P Geusens; M Drent; N C Harvey Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 4.507