[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.171.35. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure. Scatterplot of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) measurements in a subsample of the 2001-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Repeated measurements occurred approximately 19 days apart. A, Measurements are plotted on the arithmetic scale. B, Measurements are plotted on the natural logarithm scale. Solid lines are placed on the x-axis and y-axis where the CRP level = 10.0 mg/L. (To convert CRP to nanomoles per liter, multiply by 9.524.)

Figure. Scatterplot of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) measurements in a subsample of the 2001-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.5 Repeated measurements occurred approximately 19 days apart. A, Measurements are plotted on the arithmetic scale. B, Measurements are plotted on the natural logarithm scale. Solid lines are placed on the x-axis and y-axis where the CRP level = 10.0 mg/L. (To convert CRP to nanomoles per liter, multiply by 9.524.)

1.
Pearson TA, Mensah GA, Alexander RW,  et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; American Heart Association.  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.  Circulation. 2003;107(3):499-511PubMedArticle
2.
Ridker PM. Clinical application of C-reactive protein for cardiovascular disease detection and prevention.  Circulation. 2003;107(3):363-369PubMedArticle
3.
Willerson JT, Ridker PM. Inflammation as a cardiovascular risk factor.  Circulation. 2004;109(21):(suppl 1)  II2-II10PubMedArticle
4.
Spatz ES, Canavan ME, Desai MM. From here to JUPITER: clinical perspective.  Circulation Cardiovascular Quality Outcomes. 2009;2(1):41-48Article
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).  National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data 2001-2002. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2001-2002/nhanes01_02.htm. Accessed September 28, 2011
6.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.  Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-310PubMedArticle
7.
de Maat MP, de Bart AC, Hennis BC,  et al.  Interindividual and intraindividual variability in plasma fibrinogen, TPA antigen, PAI activity, and CRP in healthy, young volunteers and patients with angina pectoris.  Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1996;16(9):1156-1162PubMedArticle
8.
Bogaty P, Brophy JM, Boyer L,  et al.  Fluctuating inflammatory markers in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.  Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(2):221-226PubMedArticle
9.
Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.  2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.  Circulation. 2010;122(25):e584-e636PubMedArticle
Views 1,174
Citations 0
Research Letters
Oct 22, 2012

Within-Person Variability in High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Epidemiology and the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Bloomberg School of Public Health (Drs Bower, Lazo, and Selvin and Mr Juraschek), School of Medicine (Mr Juraschek), and Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine (Drs Lazo and Selvin), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(19):1519-1521. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3712

C-reactive protein (CRP) is a marker of systemic inflammation and cardiovascular disease.13 Based on findings from recent clinical trials, CRP has been recommended as an adjunct screening tool to stratify cardiovascular risk in the general population.4 However, evidence regarding within-person variability of CRP in the general population is limited. Short-term variability in CRP has important implications for its use and interpretation in clinical practice and research studies. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term, within-person variability in CRP measurements and to quantify the impact of repeated testing on CRP-based cardiovascular risk classification.

Methods

We included 541 participants aged 16 to 69 years who completed repeated examinations of the 2001-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Briefly, a 5% nonrandom sample of 2001-2002 NHANES participants was recruited for the second examination, occurring approximately 2.5 weeks after the original examination. Participants represented a uniform distribution of individuals by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The study design and methods for NHANES are detailed elsewhere.5

High-sensitivity serum CRP was measured using latex-enhanced nephelometry.5 We used a cut point of a minimum level of 10.0 mg/L to define an elevated CRP level, based on the NHANES laboratory reference values and American Heart Association/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations.1 We also conducted sensitivity analyses using a higher cut point (CRP level ≥ 20.0 mg/L). (To convert CRP to nanomoles per liter, multiply by 9.524.)

The Spearman rank correlation and intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficients, and the within-person coefficient of variation (CVw) were used to characterize short-term, within-person variability.6 A persistently elevated CRP level was defined as CRP level of at least 10.0 mg/L at both examinations. We used scatterplots and Bland-Altman plots to visually display measurement variability.6 Finally, we calculated the percentage of participants whose risk category was reclassified owing to repeated testing.

Results

The mean (SD) age of participants was 38.0 (16.5) years. Fifty percent of the study population were female, and 48% were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity. The mean time between examinations was 18.9 days. The mean CRP level was 4.5 mg/L (95% CI, 3.9-5.1) at the first examination and 4.3 mg/L (95% CI, 3.8-4.9) at the second examination (P value for the difference, .45). The Spearman rank correlation between visits was 0.65, the ICC was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.69-0.84), and the CVw was 46.2% (95% CI, 42.9%-49.3%). The high variability in CRP can be seen visually on the scatterplot (Figure), although the Bland-Altman plot shows that most of the discordance between examinations occurred at higher values (>10.0 mg/L) (eFigure). The variability was particularly high among persons with CRP levels greater than 20.0 mg/L.

The prevalence of an elevated CRP level of at least 10.0 mg/L was 10.5% at the first examination and 10.4% at the second; 7.2% of participants had persistently elevated CRP levels (eTable). Of those with a normal CRP level at the first examination, only 3.5% had CRP levels of at least 10.0 mg/L at the second. Of those with CRP levels of at least 10.0 mg/L at the first examination, 32% were reclassified as having CRP levels lower than 10.0 mg/L at the second. The prevalence of a CRP level of at least 20.0 mg/L at the first examination was 4.3% and was 2.8% at the second; 1.5% of participants had CRP levels of at least 20.0 mg/L at both examinations, representing an approximately 65% decrease in prevalence.

Comment

In this sample of the general population, we observed significant short-term (approximately 2.5 weeks) within-person variability in CRP levels, particularly at high values. Approximately one-third of persons with elevated CRP levels were reclassified as having normal CRP levels after repeated testing. Our results are consistent with those of previous studies conducted in small selected populations (eg, patients with ischemic heart disease) or in which measurements were months or years apart.7,8 Of note, we observed greater variation at higher values in cases in which clinicians are most likely to intervene.

The 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association guidelines for the assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults includes recommendations for CRP level to select patients for statin therapy when the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration is level than 130.0 mg/L.9 Our results suggest that use of a single CRP measure for riskstratification may lead to substantial misclassification. Recommendations for repeated testing to confirm elevations in CRP level prior to altering medical decision-making may be warranted, particularly among those with CRP values near the risk cut points.

Back to top
Article Information

Correspondence: Dr Selvin, Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research and the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 2024 E Monument St, Ste 2-600, Baltimore, MD 21287 (lselvin@jhsph.edu).

Published Online: September 3, 2012. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3712

Author Contributions: Dr Bower had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Bower, Lazo, and Selvin. Analysis and interpretation of data: Bower, Lazo, Juraschek, and Selvin. Drafting of the manuscript: Bower. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Bower, Lazo, Juraschek, and Selvin. Statistical analysis: Bower and Selvin. Obtained funding: Selvin. Study supervision: Lazo and Selvin.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: Drs Bower and Juraschek were supported by National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant T32 HL007024.

References
1.
Pearson TA, Mensah GA, Alexander RW,  et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; American Heart Association.  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.  Circulation. 2003;107(3):499-511PubMedArticle
2.
Ridker PM. Clinical application of C-reactive protein for cardiovascular disease detection and prevention.  Circulation. 2003;107(3):363-369PubMedArticle
3.
Willerson JT, Ridker PM. Inflammation as a cardiovascular risk factor.  Circulation. 2004;109(21):(suppl 1)  II2-II10PubMedArticle
4.
Spatz ES, Canavan ME, Desai MM. From here to JUPITER: clinical perspective.  Circulation Cardiovascular Quality Outcomes. 2009;2(1):41-48Article
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).  National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data 2001-2002. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2001-2002/nhanes01_02.htm. Accessed September 28, 2011
6.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.  Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-310PubMedArticle
7.
de Maat MP, de Bart AC, Hennis BC,  et al.  Interindividual and intraindividual variability in plasma fibrinogen, TPA antigen, PAI activity, and CRP in healthy, young volunteers and patients with angina pectoris.  Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1996;16(9):1156-1162PubMedArticle
8.
Bogaty P, Brophy JM, Boyer L,  et al.  Fluctuating inflammatory markers in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.  Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(2):221-226PubMedArticle
9.
Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.  2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.  Circulation. 2010;122(25):e584-e636PubMedArticle
×