BACKGROUND: High sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) has become a routine assessment tool to discriminate between patients at low, intermediate or high risk for cardiovascular events using the threshold values of 1 and 3mg/L, respectively. Over the past years, several studies have proposed the wide range C-reactive protein (wrCRP) as an alternative to the hsCRP in various clinical scenarios. However, the potential use of wrCRP in assessing the cardiovascular risk has not yet been evaluated. METHODS: Both wrCRP and hsCRP were evaluated in 15,780 apparently healthy individuals who underwent a routine annual checkup in the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. Individuals with CRP levels >5mg/L were excluded. Agreement between the two methods was observed using the Bland-Altman method and the concordance correlation coefficient. Deming regression was used to build a calibration equation. Reclassification of individuals' risk level was observed and Cohen's kappa was used to evaluate risk agreement. RESULTS: A high correlation (r=0.98) along with a significant difference (p<0.001) between hsCRP and wrCRP raised the need for calibration. A simple calibration equation (Adjusted wrCRP=0.3136+0.8803×wrCRP) led to high agreement which enabled 8.4% reclassification of the risk group. A change in the intermediate risk threshold value from 1 to 0.9mg/L led to an almost perfect agreement (kappa=0.87, p<0.001) and a low reclassification rate (7.6%), with under 0.05% of the population undergoing a major reclassification (from high to low risk or vice versa). CONCLUSIONS: In the era of limited financial resources, wrCRP assay may be used as a reasonable routine assay to evaluate the cardiovascular risk in patients undergoing a routine annual checkup.
BACKGROUND: High sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) has become a routine assessment tool to discriminate between patients at low, intermediate or high risk for cardiovascular events using the threshold values of 1 and 3mg/L, respectively. Over the past years, several studies have proposed the wide range C-reactive protein (wrCRP) as an alternative to the hsCRP in various clinical scenarios. However, the potential use of wrCRP in assessing the cardiovascular risk has not yet been evaluated. METHODS: Both wrCRP and hsCRP were evaluated in 15,780 apparently healthy individuals who underwent a routine annual checkup in the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. Individuals with CRP levels >5mg/L were excluded. Agreement between the two methods was observed using the Bland-Altman method and the concordance correlation coefficient. Deming regression was used to build a calibration equation. Reclassification of individuals' risk level was observed and Cohen's kappa was used to evaluate risk agreement. RESULTS: A high correlation (r=0.98) along with a significant difference (p<0.001) between hsCRP and wrCRP raised the need for calibration. A simple calibration equation (Adjusted wrCRP=0.3136+0.8803×wrCRP) led to high agreement which enabled 8.4% reclassification of the risk group. A change in the intermediate risk threshold value from 1 to 0.9mg/L led to an almost perfect agreement (kappa=0.87, p<0.001) and a low reclassification rate (7.6%), with under 0.05% of the population undergoing a major reclassification (from high to low risk or vice versa). CONCLUSIONS: In the era of limited financial resources, wrCRP assay may be used as a reasonable routine assay to evaluate the cardiovascular risk in patients undergoing a routine annual checkup.
Authors: Robert G Miller; Rongzhen Zhang; Paige M Bracci; Ari Azhir; Richard Barohn; Richard Bedlack; Michael Benatar; James D Berry; Merit Cudkowicz; Edward J Kasarskis; Hiroshi Mitsumoto; Georgios Manousakis; David Walk; Bjorn Oskarsson; Jeremy Shefner; Michael S McGrath Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 3.852