4.8 Article

C-reactive protein modulates risk prediction based on the Framingham score -: Implications for future risk assessment:: Results from a large cohort study in southern Germany

Journal

CIRCULATION
Volume 109, Issue 11, Pages 1349-1353

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000120707.98922.E3

Keywords

inflammation; risk factors; coronary disease; epidemiology; prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background - The Framingham Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) prediction score is recommended for global risk assessment in subjects prone to CHD. Recently, C-reactive protein (CRP) has emerged as an independent predictor of CHD. We sought to assess the potential of CRP measurements to enhance risk prediction based on the Framingham Risk Score ( FRS) in a large cohort of middle-aged men from the general population. Methods and Results - We measured CRP and traditional cardiovascular risk factors at baseline in 3435 white men of German nationality, 45 to 74 years of age. All men were drawn from 3 random samples of the general population in the Augsburg area located in Southern Germany in 1984 to 1985, 1989 to 1990, and 1994 to 1995 ( response rate, 80%), and the FRS was calculated in all of them. Outcome was defined as nonfatal and fatal coronary events, including sudden cardiac death. During an average follow-up of 6.6 years, a total of 191 coronary events occurred. Cox regression showed a significant contribution of CRP to coronary event risk prediction independent of the FRS ( P = 0.0002). In stratified analysis for 5 categories of FRS, CRP significantly added prognostic information to the FRS in subjects in 2 intermediate risk categories ( P = 0.03 and P = 0.02). Conclusions - Our results suggest that CRP enhances global coronary risk as assessed by the FRS, especially in intermediate risk groups. This might have implications for future risk assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available