| Literature DB >> 35144674 |
Amirhossein Parsaei1, Soroush Moradi1, Maryam Masoumi2, Fereydoun Davatchi3, Anahita Najafi4, Ashkan Mohammadi Kooshki5, Abdolkarim Hajighadery4, Massoomeh Akhlaghi3, Tahereh Faezi3, Hoda Kavosi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Behcet's disease (BD) as a chronic inflammatory condition that affects the eyes, skin, central nervous system, gastrointestinal tract and vessels. According to the literature, the exact value of C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) in predicting active manifestations of BD remains controversial. In this study, we aim to assess and compare values of ESR and CRP between BD patients with active/inactive BD and active/inactive manifestations of the disease. Moreover, we try to determine the predictive value of ESR and CRP for disease activity.Entities:
Keywords: Autoimmune disease; Behcet’s disease; CRP; ESR; Vascular
Year: 2022 PMID: 35144674 PMCID: PMC8832718 DOI: 10.1186/s41927-021-00241-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Rheumatol ISSN: 2520-1026
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) values based on active manifestations of Behçet’s disease
| BD active manifestations | Count (%) | ESR (mean ± SD) mm/hr | CRP (mean ± SD) mg/L | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 450 (87.5%) | 28.9 ± 23.8 | < 0.001* | 0 | < 0.001* |
| No | 64 (12.5%) | 7.8 ± 4.5 | 0.9 ± 1.2 | ||
| Yes | 234 (45.5%) | 20.7 ± 18.4 | < 0.001* | 0.6 ± 1 | < 0.001* |
| No | 280 (54.5) | 30.9 ± 26 | 1 ± 1.3 | ||
| Yes | 254 (49.4%) | 35.2 ± 23.9 | < 0.001* | 1.2 ± 1.3 | < 0.001* |
| No | 260 (50.6%) | 17.2 ± 19 | 0.4 ± 0.9 | ||
| Yes | 99 (19.3%) | 43 ± 21.7 | < 0.001* | 1.8 ± 1.2 | < 0.001* |
| No | 415 (80.7%) | 22.3 ± 22 | 0.6 ± 1.1 | ||
| Yes | 36 (7%) | 60.4 ± 20.2 | < 0.001* | 2.6 ± 1.1 | < 0.001* |
| No | 478 (93%) | 23.7 ± 21.1 | 0.7 ± 1.1 | ||
| Yes | 68 (13.2%) | 50.2 ± 20.2 | < 0.001* | 1.8 ± 1.2 | < 0.001* |
| No | 446 (86.8%) | 22.6 ± 21.6 | 0.6 ± 1.1 | ||
| Yes | 180 (35%) | 36.7 ± 20.2 | < 0.001* | 1.4 ± 1.3 | < 0.001* |
| No | 336 (65%) | 20.7 ± 23 | 0.5 ± 1 | ||
| Yes | 106 (20.6%) | 23.3 ± 25.5 | 0.017* | 0.6 ± 1.2 | 0.011* |
| No | 408 (79.4) | 27 ± 22.8 | 0.8 ± 1.2 | ||
| Yes | 6 (1.2%) | 50.1 ± 16.9 | – | 2.3 ± 1 | – |
| No | 508 (98.8%) | 26 ± 23.3 | 0.8 ± 1.2 | ||
| Yes | 7 (1.4%) | 58.7 ± 38.5 | – | 1.8 ± 1.8 | – |
| No | 507 (98.6%) | 25.8 ± 22.9 | 0.8 ± 1.2 | ||
| Yes | 2 (0.4%) | 99 ± 33.9 | – | 3.5 ± 0.7 | – |
| No | 512 (99.6%) | 26 ± 22.9 | 0.8 ± 1.2 | ||
| Total | 514 | 26.3 ± 23.4 | 0.8 ± 1.2 |
BD, Behçet’s disease; CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; SD, standard deviation
*Statistically significant (Man-Whitney U test, p-value < 0.05)
**Insufficient number to fulfill the Mann–Whitney U test’s assumption of equal distribution
Summary of binary logistic regression models for predicting BD manifestations based on ESR and CRP
| Condition | Variable | Wald | OR | 95% CI | HS value | R square | AUC | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active BD | ESR* | 17.7 | 1.09 | 1.04–1.13 | < 0.001 | 0.58 | 0.32 | 0.79 | 0.74–0.83 |
| CRP | 0 | – | – | 0.99 | 0.71 | 0.66–0.76 | |||
| Active vascular signs | ESR* | 18.2 | 1.03 | 1.01–1.05 | < 0.001 | 0.78 | 0.37 | 0.85 | 0.79–0.92 |
| CRP* | 18.4 | 1.98 | 1.45–2.72 | < 0.001 | 0.86 | 0.8–0.91 | |||
| Active ocular signs | ESR | 12.2 | 0.98 | 0.97–0.99 | < 0.001 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.39 | 0.34–0.44 |
| CRP | 0.8 | 0.91 | 0.76–1.1 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.36–0.46 | |||
| Active oral signs | ESR | 30.5 | 1.03 | 1.02–1.04 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.23 | 0.74 | 0.7–0.79 |
| CRP | 11.7 | 1.41 | 1.15–1.71 | 0.001 | 0.69 | 0.64–0.73 | |||
| Active genital signs | ESR | 11.8 | 1.02 | 1.00–1.03 | 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.23 | 0.78 | 0.73–0.82 |
| CRP | 25.0 | 1.67 | 1.36–2.04 | < 0.001 | 0.78 | 0.73–0.83 | |||
| Active joint signs | ESR | 30.5 | 1.03 | 1.02–1.05 | < 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.25 | 0.84 | 0.8–0.87 |
| CRP | 4.9 | 1.29 | 1.03–1.63 | 0.02 | 0.74 | 0.67–0.8 | |||
| Active dermal signs | ESR | 14.3 | 1.02 | 1.00–1.03 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.17 | 0.74 | 0.7–0.78 |
| CRP | 15.8 | 1.44 | 1.20–1.73 | < 0.001 | 0.70 | 0.65–0.75 | |||
| Positive pathergy test | ESR | 0.2 | 0.99 | 0.98–1.00 | 0.61 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.42 | 0.36–0.48 |
| CRP | 1.4 | 0.86 | 0.69–1.09 | 0.22 | 0.43 | 0.37–0.49 | |||
| Epididymitis** | ESR | 0.7 | 1.01 | 0.98–1.04 | 0.39 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.81 | 0.72–0.9 |
| CRP | 2.8 | 1.77 | 0.91–3.42 | 0.08 | 0.83 | 0.74–0.91 | |||
| Active GI signs** | ESR* | 3.9 | 1.07 | 1–1.15 | 0.04 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.97 | 0.94–1 |
| CRP | 0.8 | 2.41 | 0.36–16.04 | 0.36 | 0.94 | 0.88–0.99 | |||
| Active CNS signs** | ESR* | 6.0 | 1.03 | 1.00–1.06 | 0.01 | 0.77 | 0.14 | 0.77 | 0.59–0.95 |
| CRP | 0.05 | 1.07 | 0.56–2.00 | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.41–0.9 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; HS, Hosmer–lemeshow test; R square, Nagelkerke R square; AUC, area under the curve
*Statistically significant p-value with statistically non-significant Hosmer–Lemeshow test (model fitness) and area under the curve > 0.7
**Low number of patients with GI and CNS manifestations and epididymitis (0.4%, 1.4% and 1.2%, respectively) decreases the prediction model’s validity
Multiple linear regression analysis for IBDDAM score
| Variable | B (CI) | Adjusted R square | Durbin–Watson | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESR | − 0.06 (− 0.16 to 0.02) | 0.14 | ||
| CRP | − 0.82 (− 2.61 to 0.97) | 0.36 | ||
| Age | − 0.12 (− 0.29 to 0.35) | 0.12 | ||
| Gender | 1.32 (− 2.32 to 4.98) | 0.47 | ||
| Model Summary | 0.07 | 0.009 | 1.81 |
B, Unstandardized beta coefficient; CI, Confidence Interval
Fig. 1Receiver operating curve of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) in patients who had active BD
Fig. 2Receiver operating curve of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) in patients diagnosed with active vascular manifestations of BD