Grootendorst Diana C, de Jager Dinanda J, Brandenburg Vincent M, Boeschoten Elisabeth W, Krediet Raymond T, Dekker Friedo W
Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Clinical Epidemiology C9-29, P.O. Box 9600 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007 Nov;22(11):3277-84. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm381. Epub 2007 Jul 10.
The conventional method for C-reactive protein (CRP) measurement is an immunoturbidimetric assay (imCRP, detection limit > or =3 mg/l). However, high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP, detection limit >0.1 mg/l) has been advocated as preferable biomarker for cardiovascular risk assessment. The aim of this study was to determine agreement between imCRP and hsCRP in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, and to examine whether the association between CRP and mortality is comparable when using imCRP or hsCRP.
Patients from a prospective follow-up study among incident ESRD patients (NECOSAD) with serum CRP available at 3 months of follow-up were included [n = 840, 60% male, mean (SD) age 59 (15) years]. Agreement between imCRP and hsCRP was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and by Cohen's kappa (kappa) for CRP dichotomized to the presence (CRP >10 mg/l) or absence of systemic inflammation. The association between CRP and mortality was determined by Cox regression analysis and c-statistic.
ICC between imCRP and hsCRP was 0.78, which improved to 0.86 after correction for systematic differences between measurement methods. Systemic inflammation was present in 28.2% and absent in 67.6% of patients according to both methods (discordant in 4.2%), resulting in good agreement between the two methods (kappa = 0.90). Patients with systemic inflammation had a significantly increased mortality risk compared with patients without systemic inflammation [HR(im,adj) = 1.49 (95%CI 1.14-1.93) and HR(hs,adj) = 1.53 (1.18-2.0)]. Predictive capacity of mortality was similar for both CRP methods [c-statistic(adj) 0.83 (0.79-0.86)].
The agreement between imCRP and hsCRP in patients with ESRD is very good. Furthermore, the association between CRP and mortality in ESRD patients is similar when using imCRP and hsCRP. These data suggest that there is no need to use a high-sensitivity method for the determination of inflammatory status in ESRD patients.
C反应蛋白(CRP)的传统检测方法是免疫比浊法(imCRP,检测限≥3mg/L)。然而,高敏CRP(hsCRP,检测限>0.1mg/L)已被推荐作为心血管风险评估的更优生物标志物。本研究的目的是确定终末期肾病(ESRD)患者中imCRP与hsCRP之间的一致性,并检验使用imCRP或hsCRP时CRP与死亡率之间的关联是否具有可比性。
纳入来自一项对新发ESRD患者进行的前瞻性随访研究(NECOSAD)中的患者,这些患者在随访3个月时可获得血清CRP[n = 840,60%为男性,平均(标准差)年龄59(15)岁]。imCRP与hsCRP之间的一致性通过组内相关系数(ICC)以及将CRP分为存在(CRP>10mg/L)或不存在全身炎症时的Cohen's kappa(kappa)来确定。CRP与死亡率之间的关联通过Cox回归分析和c统计量来确定。
imCRP与hsCRP之间的ICC为0.78,在对测量方法之间的系统差异进行校正后提高到0.86。根据两种方法,28.2%的患者存在全身炎症,67.6%的患者不存在全身炎症(4.2%不一致),两种方法之间具有良好的一致性(kappa = 0.90)。与无全身炎症的患者相比,有全身炎症的患者死亡风险显著增加[HR(im,校正)= 1.49(95%CI 1.14 - 1.93)和HR(hs,校正)= 1.53(1.18 - 2.0)]。两种CRP检测方法对死亡率的预测能力相似[c统计量(校正)0.83(0.79 - 0.86)]。
ESRD患者中imCRP与hsCRP之间的一致性非常好。此外,使用imCRP和hsCRP时,ESRD患者中CRP与死亡率之间的关联相似。这些数据表明,在确定ESRD患者的炎症状态时无需使用高敏方法。