Determination of C-reactive protein: comparison of three high-sensitivity immunoassays.

Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory condition (1), and progression to atherothrombotic events is associated with systemic evidence of low-grade inflammation. Circulating concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) within the range previously considered to be normal have been shown to predict future cardiovascular events independently in initially healthy individuals as well as in patients with manifest atherosclerotic disease, even in the absence of hyperlipidemia (2)(3)(4). The detection of such subclinical inflammation requires high-sensitivity methods for CRP measurement. Recently, we reported on the analytical performance of a new sensitive solid-phase monoclonal-polyclonal IRMA (5). This assay has a very low analytical detection limit of 0.05 mg/L, and in a cohort study, CRP determined by this method showed a strong linear association with future coronary endpoints (4). Here we compare the performance of the IRMA specifically designed to evaluate the low CRP range with that of an ultrasensitive latex-enhanced immunonephelometric test and an immunoturbidimetric assay in a large case–control study. Additionally, we estimated the risk for coronary artery disease (CAD) given an increased CRP concentration as determined by the three assays. The cases consisted of 312 patients 40–68 years of age with clinically stable CAD, who underwent elective coronary angiography in the Department of Cardiology at the University of Ulm Medical Centre and who had one or more epicardial coronary stenoses of ≥50% in luminal diameter. Voluntary blood donors (n = 476) from the local blood bank served as controls. In these individuals, symptomatic CAD was excluded by the Rose questionnaire. Venous blood was obtained under standardized conditions in the morning before diagnostic coronary angiography in cases and after blood donation in controls. EDTA-plasma specimens were centrifuged at 3000 g for 10 min, immediately aliquoted, and frozen at −70 °C until analysis. Cases and controls were “frequency matched” by age and gender, …

[1]  W. Koenig,et al.  Refinement of the association of serum C-reactive protein concentration and coronary heart disease risk by correction for within-subject variation over time: the MONICA Augsburg studies, 1984 and 1987. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[2]  M. Woodward,et al.  Distributions of C-reactive protein measured by high-sensitivity assays in apparently healthy men and women from different populations in Europe. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[3]  P. Ridker,et al.  Population distributions of C-reactive protein in apparently healthy men and women in the United States: implication for clinical interpretation. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[4]  P. Ridker.  Clinical application of C-reactive protein for cardiovascular disease detection and prevention. , 2003, Circulation.

[5]  Yu-ling,et al.  Markers of inflammation and cardiovascular disease: application to clinical and public health practice: A statement for healthcare professionals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association. , 2003, Circulation.

[6]  Nancy R Cook,et al.  Comparison of C-reactive protein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the prediction of first cardiovascular events. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  M. V. van Dieijen-Visser,et al.  High-sensitivity C-reactive protein methods examined. , 2002, Clinical chemistry.

[8]  D. Rothenbacher,et al.  Role of novel markers of inflammation in patients with stable coronary heart disease. , 2001, The American journal of cardiology.

[9]  J. Danesh,et al.  Low grade inflammation and coronary heart disease: prospective study and updated meta-analyses , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  G. Lowe,et al.  Immunoradiometric assay of circulating C-reactive protein: age-related values in the adult general population. , 2000, Clinical chemistry.

[11]  N. Rifai,et al.  Evaluation of four automated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein methods: implications for clinical and epidemiological applications. , 2000, Clinical chemistry.

[12]  N Rifai,et al.  Clinical efficacy of an automated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein assay. , 1999, Clinical chemistry.

[13]  K. Williams,et al.  Atherosclerosis--an inflammatory disease. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  A. Döring,et al.  C-Reactive protein, a sensitive marker of inflammation, predicts future risk of coronary heart disease in initially healthy middle-aged men: results from the MONICA (Monitoring Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease) Augsburg Cohort Study, 1984 to 1992. , 1999, Circulation.

[15]  P. Ridker,et al.  Inflammation, aspirin, and the risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy men. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  D. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[17]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[18]  M. Pepys,et al.  Solid phase radioimmunoassays for human C-reactive protein. , 1981, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[19]  Laurent Degos,et al.  HISTOCOMPATIBILITY DETERMINANTS IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS , 1974 .

[20]  N Rifai,et al.  Proposed cardiovascular risk assessment algorithm using high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and lipid screening. , 2001, Clinical chemistry.

[21]  R F Martin,et al.  General deming regression for estimating systematic bias and its confidence interval in method-comparison studies. , 2000, Clinical chemistry.