4.7 Article

C-reactive protein as a predictor of prognosis in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200605-713OC

关键词

cohort study; lung diseases; obstructive; airway obstruction; inflammation; biological markers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have an ongoing systemic inflammation, which can be assessed by measuring serum C-reactive protein (CRP). Objective: To determine whether increased serum CRP in individuals with airway obstruction predicts future hospitalization and death from COPD. Methods:We performed a cohort study with a median of 8-yr follow up of 1,302 individuals with airway obstruction selected from the ongoing Copenhagen City Heart Study. Measurements and Main Results: We measured serum CRP at baseline, and recorded COPD admissions and deaths as outcomes. During follow-up, 185 (14%) individuals were hospitalized due to COPD and 83 (6%) died of COPD. Incidences of COPD hospitalization and COPD death were increased in individuals with baseline CRP > 3 mg/L versus <= 3 mg/L (log rank: p < 0.001). After adjusting for sex, age, FEV1% predicted, tobacco consumption, and ischemic heart disease, the hazard ratios for hospitalization and death due to COPD were increased at 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.0) and 2.2 (1.2-3.9) in individuals with baseline CRP > 3 mg/L versus <= 3 mg/L. After close matching for FEV1% predicted and adjusting for potential confounders, baseline CRP was, on average, increased by 1.2 mg/L (analysis of variance: p = 0.002) and 4.1 mg/L (p 0.001) in those who were subsequently hospitalized or died of COPD, respectively. The absolute 10-yr risks for COPD hospitalization and death in individuals with CRP above 3 mg/L were 54 and 57%, respectively, among those older than 70 yr with a tobacco consumption above 15 g/d and an FEV1% predicted of less than 50. Conclusions: CRP is a strong and independent predictor of future COPD outcomes in individuals with airway obstruction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据