| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Review |
1 Foundation for Blood Research, Scarborough, ME 04070-0190.
2 Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115.
aAddress correspondence to this author at: Foundation for Blood Research, 69 US Route One, Scarborough, ME 04070-0190. Fax 207-883-1377; e-mail tledue{at}fbr.org.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionStructureGeneticsPhysiologic FunctionClinical SignificanceSources of Variability in...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Issues: Most traditional CRP tests designed to monitor acute and chronic inflammation have inadequate sensitivity for risk stratification of coronary disease. Thus, manufacturers have had to develop tests with higher sensitivity. Because an individual’s CRP concentration will be interpreted according to fixed cut-points, issues related to the preanalytic and analytic components of CRP measurement must be considered and standardized where possible to avoid potential misclassification of cardiovascular risk.
Conclusions: Efforts to define performance criteria for high-sensitivity CRP applications coupled with growing awareness of the physiologic aspects of CRP most likely will lead to refinements in standardization, improved performance in quality-assessment schemes, and enhanced risk prediction.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStructureGeneticsPhysiologic FunctionClinical SignificanceSources of Variability in...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
|
Structure |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStructureGeneticsPhysiologic FunctionClinical SignificanceSources of Variability in...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
118 000 kDa. This arrangement is very similar to that of another acute-phase protein known as serum amyloid P component (5). The structure of CRP contains a crystal contact where the calcium-binding loop from one protomer coordinates into the calcium site of a second protomer to form the pentameric structure (Fig. 1
). This configuration allows for the binding of the ligand phosphocholine and provides information concerning conformational changes related to calcium binding.
|
|
Genetics |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStructureGeneticsPhysiologic FunctionClinical SignificanceSources of Variability in...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
|
Physiologic Function |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStructureGeneticsPhysiologic FunctionClinical SignificanceSources of Variability in...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
(9). In the presence of calcium ions, CRP binds to polysaccharides of many bacteria, fungi, and certain parasites. In addition, CRP also binds to phosphorylcholine, phosphatidylcholines, and nucleic acids, and it demonstrates a non-calcium-dependent binding to cationic molecules such as protamine, heparin, and histones (10). More recently, CRP has been shown to bind to various lipid structures, such as liposomes and lipoproteins, which on aggregation are incorporated into LDL and VLDL (11). Once bound, CRP is a powerful activator of the classic complement system and can promote opsonization and phagocytosis of foreign substances. It is one of the most consistently increased and fastest reacting acute-phase proteins (biological half-life of 19 h), suggesting that it is part of the innate immune response (12). Concentrations may increase 1000-fold or more within 24–48 h of tissue injury. |
Clinical Significance |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStructureGeneticsPhysiologic FunctionClinical SignificanceSources of Variability in...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
10 to 50 mg/L, whereas active inflammation and bacterial infections generally cause concentrations between 50 and 200 mg/L (13). Concentrations >200 mg/L are seen in more severe infections and in trauma. As a sensitive but nonspecific marker of inflammation, CRP concentrations should always be interpreted in the context of the patient’s clinical history, preferably with review of previous results. Recent evidence has clearly demonstrated that increases in CRP concentrations within the reference interval are associated with future coronary events in apparently healthy men and women (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19). Those with baseline CRP concentrations in the highest quartile are at two to four times the risk of future myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, and sudden cardiac death compared with those with CRP in the lowest quartile. Baseline concentrations of other inflammatory markers, such as serum amyloid A (15), IL-6(19), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (20), and P-selectin (21), have shown similar association with future coronary events, thus further reflecting the current understanding of vascular biology of atherogenesis. Over the last decade, the contribution of chronic inflammation to the initiation and progression of atherosclerosis has become more understood and appreciated. Compared with other novel and traditional markers of coronary heart disease (CHD), CRP was shown to be the strongest predictor of future coronary events, and when combined with total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and LDL-cholesterol, its ability to predict risk was improved further (14)(15)(16)(22)(23)(24). It is important to note that high-sensitivity (hs) methods are needed for the measurement of CRP for the purpose of assessing risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy individuals. A recent analysis from the Women’s Health Study not only demonstrated that CRP is superior to LDL-cholesterol in predicting future coronary events but also showed that women with high CRP and low LDL-cholesterol are at a higher risk of coronary events than those with high LDL-cholesterol but low CRP (25). In addition, CRP was found to add to the ability to predict risk at any LDL-cholesterol concentration or Framingham Risk Score, indicating that this marker identifies a group of individuals at increased risk who are currently missed under traditional measures (25). Data from the same cohort also demonstrated that CRP adds clinically important prognostic information to the metabolic syndrome; women with metabolic syndrome and increased CRP are at twice the risk of coronary events than those with metabolic syndrome and low CRP (26).
Potential intervention strategies to reduce risk of future coronary events in individuals with increased CRP concentration by use of aspirin (14)(27)(28) or statin (29)(30) have been shown. In addition, CRP has been shown to have prognostic utility in patients with acute coronary syndromes (31), even in the absence of myocardial necrosis, suggesting that CRP may reflect plaque vulnerability and its likelihood to rupture (32)(33). Other inflammatory markers, such as IL-6 and serum amyloid A, have shown similar utility (29)(34)(35)(36). Although its exact role in atherogenesis is not known, current evidence suggests that CRP may be an actual culprit and not simply an innocent surrogate marker for systemic or vascular inflammation. CRP was shown to activate complement, up-regulate the production of adhesion molecules, increase LDL uptake into macrophages, stimulate nitric oxide production and endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression, and increase plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 expression and activity (37)(38)(39)(40)(41).
On the basis of these findings, the CDC and the American Heart Association (AHA) issued guidelines for the utility of this marker in the primary prevention setting and in patients with stable coronary disease or acute coronary syndromes (42). The guidelines also included specific recommendations that pertain to the laboratory aspect of CRP and defined cut-points for clinical interpretation; CRP concentrations <1 mg/L are considered low, 1–3 mg/L average, and >3 mg/L high relative risk.
For any analyte to be measured correctly, a better understanding of the preanalytic and analytic variability is required. Discussed below are the various sources of variability in the measurement of CRP, some of which were considered by the CDC/AHA expert panel in its deliberation (Table 1
).
|
|
Sources of Variability in CRP Measurement |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStructureGeneticsPhysiologic FunctionClinical SignificanceSources of Variability in...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Race and ethnicity.
The majority of traditional CRP immunoassays are unable to reliably measure CRP <5 mg/L. Historically, laboratories have reported these values as "less than" the assay’s lower detection limit; however, with the wide availability of hs-CRP methods, the determination of population distributions for CRP is now feasible. Using a particle-enhanced nephelometric assay for hs-CRP, Ledue et al. (43) found that the distribution of CRP concentrations in both genders was nongaussian when evaluated for skewness and kurtosis (Fig. 2
), consistent with findings elsewhere (25)(44). Recent data from several American and European studies have clearly demonstrated the comparable distribution of CRP concentrations among women not receiving hormone replacement therapy and men (Table 2
and see below) (45)(46)(47). The 50th percentile of CRP measured in the various populations was 1.5 mg/L for both genders. Furthermore, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III showed no significant difference in the distribution of CRP concentration among white, African-American, and Mexican-American men (Table 3
) (45). Moreover, a comparable CRP distribution was seen in Japanese men (48). Japanese women, however, seem to have slightly lower CRP concentrations. Furthermore, the geometric mean for CRP in Indian Asians was reported to be 17% higher than in European whites (49), a difference that was no longer significant after the adjustment for central obesity and insulin resistance (50). The clinical implication of these findings is that no gender- or ethnic-specific cut-points for CRP are indicated.
|
|
|
Age and sex.
Most studies have reported no relationship between age (range, 20–70 years) and serum CRP concentrations (43)(44)(51) (Fig. 3
). However, at least two studies reported a slight increase of CRP concentrations with age (52)(53). The authors could not exclude the possibility that such an increase might be attributable to the increased incidence of obesity that is associated with aging (52) or to subclinical inflammation and seasonal collection issues (53). In the largest study done to date, which included 15 770 women, only a slight change in CRP concentration with age was seen: median CRP concentrations for individuals 45–54, 55–64, 65–74, and 
75 years of age were 1.31, 1.89, 1.99, and 1.52 mg/L, respectively (46).
|
Seasonal variation.
At present, there are limited data on CRP concentrations and seasonal cycles. In a group of 24 elderly individuals (age 75 years) whose blood was collected monthly for 1 year, a change of 3.7 mg/L was observed between winter and summer; no evidence for infection was found to explain the difference (54). In contrast, no consistent pattern of change in CRP concentrations was reported from SEASON, a study specifically designed to examine seasonal changes in cardiovascular risk biomarkers (55).
Within- and between-subject variation.
In one study, the within-subject CV for 19 healthy adults studied over 20 weeks was 63% compared with a between-subject CV of 76% (56). The authors of another study reported a within-subject CV of 42% and a between-subject CV of 92% (57). Such variation has led some to question whether it is possible to reliably predict CHD risk using smaller groups such as tertiles, quartiles, or quintiles (58)(59)(60)(61). In contrast, data from one study summarizing the biological variability for CRP indicated that the rather large intraindividual CV (mean of 30%) was acceptable when the estimated composite CV for the group of individuals was 120% (62). They suggested multiple blood sampling to establish an individual’s baseline CRP. In one study, three measurements at monthly intervals were recommended to define an individual’s steady-state concentration, provided there is no intercurrent infection (57). However, recently it has been shown that two independent measurements of CRP or total cholesterol, 3 months apart, enabled classification of up to 90% of individuals into the exact or immediately adjacent quartile (55). Additional analyses of these data have shown that >95% of individuals would be classified in the exact tertile of risk or vary by one tertile based on the newly recommended cut-points (Fig. 4
). Continued skepticism surrounding the issue of intraindividual variation remains (63)(64), but the CDC/AHA expert panel concluded that the mean of two independent measurements (fasting or nonfasting) of CRP, taken at least 2 weeks apart, should be used to establish a person’s risk of future coronary events. When CRP is >10 mg/L, CRP measurement should be repeated in 2 weeks to avoid misclassification because of an asymptomatic inflammatory response or a subclinical infection (65).
|
Lifestyle (exercise, smoking, obesity, alcohol, antiinflammatory drugs, hormone therapy).
There are limited studies investigating the effect of exercise on CRP concentrations. Strenuous exercise has been shown to increase CRP concentrations. In a group of 30 male marathon runners, median CRP concentrations increased from a pre-race concentration of 1.1 mg/L to a post-race concentration of 4.0 mg/L and increased further (to 22.7 mg/L) 24 h after the race ended (66). An inverse association between CRP concentration and degree of cardiorespiratory fitness was observed in a group of 722 men, with the highest adjusted CRP concentrations in the lowest fitness quintile (67). Among 3638 apparently healthy adults over the age of 40 years, a higher frequency of physical activity was associated with significantly lower odds of having increased CRP or white blood cell concentrations after adjustment for several potential confounding factors (68). The authors of the study concluded that the antiinflammatory effects of routine exercise might help to attenuate CHD risk.
Numerous studies have documented significant correlation between CRP and smoking (28)(69)(70)(71)(72)(73)(74)(75). In general, CRP concentrations increase among smokers with increased cigarette consumption (72). In the elderly, CRP concentrations are associated with lifetime exposure to cigarette smoke. This association is independent of cessation, suggesting that some of the smoking-related damage may be irreversible (73). These data support the hypothesis that CRP is primarily related to lifetime exposure (pack-years) and not to years since cessation of smoking. Furthermore, CRP concentrations were reported to have doubled in current smokers compared with never-smokers, and although they decreased with time since smoking cessation, CRP concentrations remained increased more than 10 years after smoking cessation compared with values for never-smokers (74). In the Physicians’ Health Study (14) and the Women’s Health Study (69), CRP was a good predictor of future MI in both smokers and nonsmokers. In the Helsinki Heart Study, smokers in the highest CRP quartile had a relative risk for CHD of 8.6 compared with 1.6 for smokers in the lowest CRP quartile (75).
Higher CRP concentrations have been found among individuals with increased body mass index (76)(77). The relationships between CRP concentrations and measures of obesity have been reported to be consistent with in vivo release of IL-6 from adipose tissue (78). In fact, nearly one-fourth of IL-6 produced in vivo originates from adipose tissue (79) and is thought to modify adipocyte glucose, lipid metabolism, and body weight (80)(81). In children 10–11 years of age, adiposity was the major determinant of CRP concentrations, with values nearly threefold higher in the top fifth of the ponderal index than in the bottom fifth (82). Moreover, among healthy 2- to 3-year-old children enrolled in a dietary study, obesity was associated with higher fasting insulin concentrations, which in turn were associated with increased CRP concentrations (83). Several studies have clearly demonstrated that significant weight reduction is associated with decreased concentrations of CRP, several cytokines, and adhesion molecules, thus indicating a reduction in the entire inflammatory state of an individual (84)(85).
Among patients with a first MI, alcohol use was associated with CRP concentrations, with never-users having higher concentrations compared with regular drinkers. However, no difference in concentrations was found among control individuals (86). In 17 patients who drank for more than 3 weeks, the median CRP concentrations decreased from 6 to 4 mg/L one week after alcohol withdrawal (70). Recently, Albert et al. (87) showed that moderate alcohol consumption was associated with lower CRP concentrations compared with no or occasional alcohol intake, suggesting that alcohol may attenuate CHD risk in part through antiinflammatory mechanisms. Furthermore, data from prospective studies have shown that IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor- receptors 1 and 2 are lower in moderate drinkers than nondrinkers, further suggesting antiinflammatory effects of alcohol (88).
Although it has been shown that aspirin significantly reduces (60%) the incidence of MI in men with increased CRP concentration, its effect on CRP concentration is uncertain. The authors of one report observed no change in CRP concentrations measured in healthy volunteers receiving aspirin for 7 days (325 or 81 mg/day) (71), whereas the authors of a separate investigation noted a significant decrease in CRP concentration among patients with stable angina pectoris receiving aspirin for 21 days (300 mg/day) (28). The authors of another study reported no appreciable change in CRP concentrations in 57 healthy adults who received 81 mg/day, 81 mg every 3 days, or 325 mg every 3 days for 1 month; however, a sharp reduction in thromboxane ß2 was noted (89). Clearly, larger studies with longer duration of aspirin use are needed to fully determine the effect of this drug on CRP concentration. It is unknown whether periodic or chronic antiinflammatory drug use should be discontinued before blood collection, and if so, how long individuals should be off their medication beforehand. Additional research into this subject would seem appropriate.
Both lovastatin and pravastatin have been shown to reduce coronary events in individuals with increased CRP concentration (30)(90), suggesting an antiinflammatory effect of this class of drugs. Laboratory studies have further confirmed the antiinflammatory effect of statin drugs (91)(92). Several studies have shown that pravastatin, lovastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and cerivastatin lower CRP concentrations by 15–20% and that the decrease does not appear to be dose related or correlated with LDL-cholesterol (14)(29)(30)(93)(94). It is thought that the CRP reduction may be mediated by reduced monocyte expression of IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor- (92).
Both randomized clinical trials and cross-sectional studies have shown that hormone replacement therapy increases serum CRP concentrations by two- to threefold (95)(96)(97). In the Women’s Health Study, those who received hormone replacement therapy had median CRP concentrations twice as high as those who did not receive therapy and age-matched males (96). In an investigation of postmenopausal women enrolled in a trial to evaluate the effects of oral conjugated estrogen and droloxifene, estrogen treatment produced significantly higher IL-6 and CRP concentrations but a slight decrease in soluble E-selectin. In contrast, droloxifene had no effect on CRP and IL-6, but did produce a significant decrease in the concentration of E-selectin. The clinical implications of the mixed profile of both pro- and antiinflammatory effects remain to be elucidated and underscore the need for continuing investigation of selective estrogen replacement modulators (98). The authors of a recent prospective study observed no effect of exogenous androgen therapy on serum inflammatory markers (including CRP) and concluded that a gender difference may exist regarding the effects of estrogen on serum inflammatory markers (99).
Other conditions.
The mean serum CRP concentrations in 15 healthy adult males increased by about 65% after changing altitude from sea level to over 3600 m (100). In evaluating the effect of high altitude on blood chemistries, it is important to adjust for the significant increase in hemoglobin concentration as a result of height. The authors of a study of pregnant women found slightly higher CRP concentrations in pregnant than in nonpregnant women, but they did not observe changes associated with gestational age (101).
Specimen collection
Fasting.
Very little data exist comparing specimens drawn fasting and postprandially for hs-CRP. However, there are well-documented studies showing changes in lipids after a fatty meal. Therefore, in assays that depend on optical clarity, such as turbidimetry and nephelometry, fasting before sampling may be needed.
Time of collection.
It is important to establish whether CRP exhibits a circadian rhythm to determine whether an optimal time for sample collection is necessary for the purpose of assessing future coronary risk. Interest in the diurnal variation of CRP is further stimulated by the fact that proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-6, which stimulates CRP synthesis, exhibit diurnal variation (102)(103). A recent study has shown no evidence of diurnal variation for CRP from hourly blood samples collected from 13 healthy adults (104). The relatively long half-life of CRP (19 h) may have blunted the circadian effect of IL-6.
Specimen type.
Most immunoassays are suitable for work with either serum or plasma; however, data comparing these two fluids are a commonly unrecognized source of variability in CRP assays. It has been reported that the use of EDTA- or citrated plasma specimens produced differences of -12% and -16% in hs-CRP concentration compared with serum (105); the osmotic shifting effect of the anticoagulant on erythrocytes was listed as the likely explanation for the observed discrepancy. Moreover, in an evaluation of a small bench-top device using heparin-plasma and EDTA-whole-blood samples compared directly with serum samples, Deming regression analysis for the comparison between serum and heparin plasma yielded a slope of 0.99, whereas the comparison between serum and EDTA whole blood gave a slope of 0.90 (106). These investigators also noted that twice as many results were one quartile lower with whole-blood specimens compared with serum. In contrast, no significant differences were found when serum, heparin-, and EDTA-plasma samples were simultaneously collected from a single stick in 25 patients (107). In light of the conflicting information, the CDC/AHA committee has stated that there is a need for additional comparisons of hs-CRP assays between serum and plasma samples collected in heparin or in EDTA (42).
Time and temperature of storage.
CRP has been shown to be stable at 4 °C for 60 days (108). No significant effect of storage in liquid nitrogen for 6 months was seen in CRP concentrations on samples collected from apparently healthy individuals (46). In a study of long-term storage, no significant changes in CRP concentrations were seen in healthy individuals or individuals with an APR when serum or plasma was stored at -70 °C for more than 20 years (109). Ideally, when samples are to be stored long term, they should be dispensed into cryotubes with minimal air space and stored at -20 °C or colder in a noncycling freezer. On removal, samples should be thawed slowly in either a freezer or refrigerator, depending on the initial storage condition, and mixed by gentle inversion before use.
analytic variability
Laboratory methodology.
Various commercial methods have been developed to measure CRP in serum and plasma. In the past, many laboratories have used the semiquantitative latex agglutination assay for estimation of the extent of inflammation. However, the lack of assay sensitivity and subjective interpretation make correlation with clinical disease activity difficult. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, more reliable methods, including nephelometry and turbidimetry, began to appear (110). The advantage of these assays is that they are fully automated, rapid, and reproducible; however, most have a lower detection limit around 5 mg/L, which precludes their use in risk assessment for CHD, where significant changes in the range of 0.5–3.5 mg/L have been reported (14)(15).
Investigators have worked to improve the performance of CRP assays through the use of fluorescent, luminescent, or radioactive adducts to antibodies to enhance the immunoprecipitate and ameliorate the signal. Most of these approaches provide for the reliable measurement of CRP in apparently healthy individuals, but they tend to be more laborious and expensive to perform. An alternative design has been to amplify the light-scattering properties of the antigen-antibody complex by covalently coupling latex particles to a specific antibody. This approach has been very successful and has achieved widespread appeal among clinical laboratories because of the flexibility of chemistry analyzers for turbidimetric applications.
With the increased availability of hs-CRP immunoassays, much discussion concerning their performance and clinical utility has arisen (107)(111)(112)(113). Indeed, different studies using various assays have shown significant discrepancy in reported results and emphasized the need for additional standardization (114). Furthermore, as different clinical applications for CRP have evolved, some laboratories may be required to use two different assays depending on the clinical concern, certainly a potential source of confusion for both the clinician and the laboratorian. Luckily, the third generation of latex-based CRP assays are able to measure CRP over a very wide range of concentrations (0.1–200 mg/L) (115). The use of different size latex particles has made such measurements feasible.
Detection limit.
As indicated earlier, individuals would be classified into categories of risk on the basis of tertiles of CRP. Therefore, for clinical utility, the assay of interest must be able to reliably measure hs-CRP at least at the lowest cut-point (1 mg/L). Assays used for population-based studies and clinical research, however, should be able to measure hs-CRP concentrations at much lower concentrations, such as 0.15 mg/L (2.5th percentile of the reference population). It has recently been shown that of the nine second-generation hs-CRP assays examined, all had a functional sensitivity 
0.3 mg/L and five had a lower limit of quantification 0.2 mg/L (112). For clinical utility, all second- and third-generation methods for hs-CRP appear to have the desired sensitivity.
Precision.
The extent to which replicate analyses of a sample agree with each other, usually expressed as imprecision (CV), is the result of combined variables, including antibody affinity, specimen dilution (i.e., degree of turbidity), instrument performance (i.e., lamp deterioration), and operator technique. Determining the precision usually involves multiple measurements of a given specimen at a discrete concentration. A potential problem with this approach is that the imprecision between two or three discrete intervals requires interpolation. An alternative approach is to construct an imprecision profile (116) using specimens of various concentrations (Fig. 5
). This approach provides valuable information on the assay’s working range, and when sufficient points are included, an estimate of the assay’s functional sensitivity can be determined (117). It was suggested that for hs-CRP, the within-laboratory total imprecision should be <10% across the linear range of the assay (113). In a recent evaluation, only five of the nine hs-CRP methods examined met this criterion (Table 4
) (112), which underscores the need for more precise assays.
|
|
Antigen excess.
In light-scattering immunoassays, as the antigen concentration increases beyond the equivalence point, smaller immune complexes are formed, which leads to a diminished signal. This diminished signal may correspond to an antigen concentration in antibody excess or beyond the equivalence point in antigen excess. This problem is common with analytes such as CRP, for which there is a very wide pathologic range of concentrations. Among the nine hs-CRP assays evaluated, antigen excess was detected in three of them (112). Manufacturers of hs-CRP tests should work to eliminate these effects; meanwhile, laboratorians should exercise care in selecting and evaluating assays for prozone effects.
Matrix effects.
Matrix effects typically lead to consistent differences between results obtained with different matrices, such as that between serum and the matrix used to prepare a calibrator. These differences might also include variation in optical clarity, protein structure (e.g., monomeric vs the native pentameric protein), and binding to other proteins. In the presence of differences in the protein itself, variations in antibody specificity and reactivity could also contribute to divergence in assayed values. Among nine different hs-CRP methods traceable to the internationally certified reference material (CRM 470), differences ranging from -31% to +28% were seen for a single serum specimen with a concentration of 0.5 mg/L (112). The authors concluded that matrix effects among the various calibrators were a likely factor contributing to the lack of agreement among the methods.
Curve-fitting algorithms.
Most hs-CRP methods use some sort of curve-fitting routine to determine concentrations in patient sera. Before implementing a hs-CRP assay, the laboratory should validate the curve-fitting algorithm for goodness of fit to ensure they do not introduce imprecision or bias into the reported value. Validation techniques involving the back-calculation of calibrator concentrations are relatively straightforward to perform and can reveal concentration-dependent differences. In general, multipoint calibration methods produce more accurate and precise results than single or two-point calibration curves (118). An evaluation of four hs-CRP assays revealed a "bend" in the regression line at 2.5 mg/L for the Roche, Technoclone, and Biokit methods compared with the Dade Behring assay using the Behring Nephelometer II (111). The bend was attributed to the opposite nonlinearity of the immunoturbidimetric assays compared with the Dade Behring assay. By deriving separate regression equations for concentrations above and below 2.5 mg/L, the authors achieved harmonization of patient results among the different assays. However, the deficiencies identified by these studies stress the need for careful evaluation of all hs-CRP assays, especially at the clinical cut-points.
Method correlation studies.
Method correlation studies are routinely performed to assess the agreement between two methods. Most published studies include the slope and intercept from simple least-squares regression as well as the correlation coefficient (r) to gauge how well the methods agree. Unfortunately, this approach can be misleading because it assumes that the comparison method is without error (119). An alternative strategy is to use Deming regression analysis, which minimizes the error in both the comparison and test methods. In addition, care must be exercised in interpreting a high r value because this does not necessarily indicate good agreement in the range of clinical importance. A preferable approach to interpreting correlation data is to use the Bland–Altman method (120) and an evaluation of the percentage rather than absolute differences between two methods because the SD is frequently concentration-dependent (121). The example presented in Fig. 6
illustrates the advantages of this approach quite clearly. The CDC has embarked on an ambitious effort to develop a reference method for CRP based on liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry that will serve as the accuracy base for future assay evaluations.
|
Reference materials.
The vast majority of hs-CRP immunoassays are calibrated to either the WHO 1st International Reference Preparation for C-reactive Protein Immunoassay (85/506), introduced in 1986 (122), or CRM 470, introduced in 1993(123). The value assigned to CRM 470 was derived from WHO IRP 85/506 by use of a very high-precision transfer protocol (51). Despite the availability of valid reference materials, there have been several reports of bias-related problems attributed to standardization or to poor value transfer by the manufacturer (43)(112)(113). In addition, lack of commutability among different assays (e.g., nephelometric vs turbidimetric) from a single manufacturer can arise when the manufacturer’s calibrators and controls are not compared directly with CRM 470 in each assay system (124).
Standardization of hs-CRP assays.
As indicated above, several reports that examined the performance of hs-CRP methods indicated a discrepancy among reported results and suggested the need for further standardization. Agreement among the various hs-CRP methodologies is essential considering that individual patient results will be interpreted within the context of nationally established cut-points. To address this issue, the CDC has initiated a standardization program in which manufacturers of all hs-CRP reagents worldwide have been invited to participate. Phase I of this project aims to identify a suitable reference material. One suggested reason for the lack of agreement in CRP concentrations among the different manufacturers is the relatively high concentrations of CRP in the two primary reference materials (39.3 mg/L for CRM 470 and 49 mg/L for WHO 85/506) because they were developed for use in more traditional applications (125). However, a recent study showed that when an initial 1-in-4 dilution of CRM 470 was made in the manufacturer’s diluent, commutability with both the manufacturer’s calibrator and with dilutions of serum pools could be achieved (126). The study also demonstrated that a previously described value-transfer protocol endorsed by the IFCC could be used with success (51)(127). The main advantages of CRM 470 include the fact that it is universally used by the diagnostic industry for serum protein calibration, it is very stable, it is free from interferents (rheumatoid factor, lipids, and monoclonal proteins), and it is available in large quantities (128). Furthermore, a common reference material that meets the needs of traditional and high-sensitivity applications has obvious practical benefits from the perspective of diagnostic manufacturers. Recent work by the CDC standardization committee on hs-CRP confirmed that CRM 470 performed comparably to the other candidate materials and that it should be used in phase II, which will seek to harmonize various hs-CRP assays in conjunction with a standard value-transfer protocol (129).
Quality-assessment schemes.
The majority of external quality-assessment schemes in use reflect traditional (nonenhanced) CRP assays. Most published reports reflect unusually large within- and among-manufacturer CVs that are concentration-dependent. Data from the 2000–2001 College of American Pathologists (CAP) proficiency program revealed that at CRP concentrations of 28 and 56 mg/L, the mean among-manufacturer CV was 12% compared with 34% at 2.9 mg/L. These data are consistent with a recent study that showed that at CRP concentrations <6 mg/L, among-manufacturer CVs ranged from 30% to 60% and within-manufacturer (among laboratory) CVs were as high as 160% (130). At CRP concentrations >20 mg/L, the among-manufacturer CV was <20% and the within-manufacturer CVs were 3–15%. Similar findings have been reported in earlier studies from Belgium (117) and the United Kingdom (130). These results not only underscore the need for more sensitive immunoassays, but virtually preclude the use of most traditional assays for estimating CHD risk (124).
In 2002, the CAP introduced a proficiency survey program for hs-CRP methods. Among the different method peer groups, CVs were 21–90% at a CRP concentration of 0.24 mg/L; 6–23% at 1.46 mg/L, and 5–11% at 11.3 mg/L (Fig. 7A
). Accuracy (calculated as the peer group mean to the all-method mean) ranged from 45% to 225% at 0.24 mg/L; from 91% to 116% at 1.46 mg/L, and from 96% to 114% at 11.3 mg/L (Fig. 7B
). The large CVs and observed differences among results clearly support the need for improved standardization efforts.
|
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStructureGeneticsPhysiologic FunctionClinical SignificanceSources of Variability in...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStructureGeneticsPhysiologic FunctionClinical SignificanceSources of Variability in...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in men. Chronobiol Int 1995;12:19-27.[Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
1 proteinase inhibitor complexes as analytes in the diagnosis and followup of sepsis in newborns and adults. Eur J Clin Chem Biochem 1994;32:365-368.
The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Shemesh, K. G. Rowley, A. J. Jenkins, J. D. Best, and K. O'Dea C-Reactive Protein Concentrations Are Very High and More Stable over Time Than the Traditional Vascular Risk Factors Total Cholesterol and Systolic Blood Pressure in an Australian Aboriginal Cohort Clin. Chem., February 1, 2009; 55(2): 336 - 341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M Ridker C-Reactive Protein: Eighty Years from Discovery to Emergence as a Major Risk Marker for Cardiovascular Disease Clin. Chem., February 1, 2009; 55(2): 209 - 215. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Arima, M. Kubo, K. Yonemoto, Y. Doi, T. Ninomiya, Y. Tanizaki, J. Hata, K. Matsumura, M. Iida, and Y. Kiyohara High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein and Coronary Heart Disease in a General Population of Japanese: The Hisayama Study Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, July 1, 2008; 28(7): 1385 - 1391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Fornage, Y. A. Chiang, E. S. O'Meara, B. M. Psaty, A. P. Reiner, D. S. Siscovick, R. P. Tracy, and W.T. Longstreth Jr Biomarkers of Inflammation and MRI-Defined Small Vessel Disease of the Brain: The Cardiovascular Health Study Stroke, July 1, 2008; 39(7): 1952 - 1959. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. C. Grootendorst, D. J. de Jager, V. M. Brandenburg, E. W. Boeschoten, R. T. Krediet, F. W. Dekker, and The NECOSAD Study Group Excellent agreement between C-reactive protein measurement methods in end-stage renal disease patients no additional power for mortality prediction with high-sensitivity CRP Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., November 1, 2007; 22(11): 3277 - 3284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. Ye, Z. Yu, H. Li, O. H. Franco, Y. Liu, and X. Lin Distributions of C-Reactive Protein and its Association With Metabolic Syndrome in Middle-Aged and Older Chinese People J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 1, 2007; 49(17): 1798 - 1805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Barac, U. Campia, and J. A. Panza Methods for Evaluating Endothelial Function in Humans Hypertension, April 1, 2007; 49(4): 748 - 760. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. M. Capuzzi and J. S. Freeman C-Reactive Protein and Cardiovascular Risk in the Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes: Controversy and Challenge Clin. Diabetes, January 1, 2007; 25(1): 16 - 22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. A. Lange, C. S. Carlson, L. A. Hindorff, E. M. Lange, J. Walston, J. P. Durda, M. Cushman, J. C. Bis, D. Zeng, D. Lin, et al. Association of Polymorphisms in the CRP Gene With Circulating C-Reactive Protein Levels and Cardiovascular Events JAMA, December 13, 2006; 296(22): 2703 - 2711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. A. Albert and P. M Ridker C-Reactive Protein as a Risk Predictor: Do Race/Ethnicity and Gender Make a Difference? Circulation, August 1, 2006; 114(5): e67 - e74. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. V. Callaghan and S. I. Gutman Counterpoint: food and drug administration guidance for C-reactive protein assays: matching claims with performance data. Clin. Chem., July 1, 2006; 52(7): 1256 - 1257. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Vasan Biomarkers of Cardiovascular Disease: Molecular Basis and Practical Considerations Circulation, May 16, 2006; 113(19): 2335 - 2362. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. M. Scirica, D. A. Morrow, S. Verma, S. Devaraj, I. Jialal, B. M. Scirica, D. A. Morrow, S. Verma, S. Devaraj, and I. Jialal The Verdict Is Still Out Circulation, May 2, 2006; 113(17): 2128 - 2151. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Ma, J. A Griffith, L. Chasan-Taber, B. C Olendzki, E. Jackson, E. J Stanek III, W. Li, S. L Pagoto, A. R Hafner, and I. S Ockene Association between dietary fiber and serum C-reactive protein. Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, April 1, 2006; 83(4): 760 - 766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Kathiresan, M. G. Larson, R. S. Vasan, C.-Y. Guo, P. Gona, J. F. Keaney Jr, P. W.F. Wilson, C. Newton-Cheh, S. L. Musone, A. L. Camargo, et al. Contribution of Clinical Correlates and 13 C-Reactive Protein Gene Polymorphisms to Interindividual Variability in Serum C-Reactive Protein Level Circulation, March 21, 2006; 113(11): 1415 - 1423. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Klein, B. E. K. Klein, M. D. Knudtson, T. Y. Wong, and M. Y. Tsai Are Inflammatory Factors Related to Retinal Vessel Caliber?: The Beaver Dam Eye Study Arch Ophthalmol, January 1, 2006; 124(1): 87 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Di Napoli, M. Schwaninger, R. Cappelli, E. Ceccarelli, G. Di Gianfilippo, C. Donati, H. C.A. Emsley, S. Forconi, S. J. Hopkins, L. Masotti, et al. Evaluation of C-Reactive Protein Measurement for Assessing the Risk and Prognosis in Ischemic Stroke: A Statement for Health Care Professionals From the CRP Pooling Project Members Stroke, June 1, 2005; 36(6): 1316 - 1329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. F. Hilpert, P. M. Kris-Etherton, and S. G. West Lipid Response to a Low-Fat Diet with or without Soy Is Modified by C-Reactive Protein Status in Moderately Hypercholesterolemic Adults J. Nutr., May 1, 2005; 135(5): 1075 - 1079. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. L. Roberts CDC/AHA Workshop on Markers of Inflammation and Cardiovascular Disease: Application to Clinical and Public Health Practice: Laboratory Tests Available to Assess Inflammation--Performance and Standardization: A Background Paper Circulation, December 21, 2004; 110(25): e572 - e576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M Ridker, N. J. Brown, D. E. Vaughan, D. G. Harrison, and J. L. Mehta Established and Emerging Plasma Biomarkers in the Prediction of First Atherothrombotic Events Circulation, June 29, 2004; 109(25_suppl_1): IV-6 - IV-19. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. G. Hackam and S. L. Shumak C-reactive protein for the prediction of cardiovascular risk: Ready for prime-time? Can. Med. Assoc. J., May 11, 2004; 170(10): 1563 - 1565. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M Ridker and N. Cook Clinical Usefulness of Very High and Very Low Levels of C-Reactive Protein Across the Full Range of Framingham Risk Scores Circulation, April 27, 2004; 109(16): 1955 - 1959. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. von Eckardstein Is there a need for novel cardiovascular risk factors? Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 761 - 765. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all eLetters
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
) with total cholesterol (Tchol; 
).
; overall mean hs-CRP = 0.24 mg/L; overall CV = 120%); survey specimen 2 (