Cited by 613Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthBiomarkers in Disease MechanismsPeripheral Artery Disease Management

Clinical Efficacy of an Automated High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein Assay

Rifai, Nader, Tracy, Russell P, Ridker, Paul M·1999·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: Prospective studies have shown that C-reactive protein (CRP) can be used to predict risk of future cardiovascular events. High-sensitivity methods for CRP (hs-CRP) measurement are needed for this purpose. Methods: We compared the clinical efficacy of an automated and commercially available latex-enhanced assay (Latex) for hs-CRP (Dade Behring) to a validated in-house ELISA, previously shown to predict future peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in asymptomatic populations. Using a prospective, nested, case-control design, we measured baseline hs-CRP concentrations in 144 apparently healthy men who subsequently developed symptomatic PAD and 144 age- and smoking habit-matched controls who remained free of vascular disease over the follow-up period of 60 months. Results: The two hs-CRP assays correlated highly (r = 0.95; P <0.001), and all but two participants were classified into concordant quartiles or varied by only one quartile. The median hs-CRP of the case group was significantly higher than that of controls when measured by either the ELISA (1.34 vs 0.99 mg/L; P = 0.034) or the Latex method (1.80 vs 1.20 mg/L; P = 0.042). Furthermore, for both ELISA and the Latex method, the calculated relative risks of developing PAD increased significantly with each increasing quartile of hs-CRP. The calculated interquartile increase in relative risk of PAD was 31% (95% confidence interval, 5.2–62.2%; P = 0.01) for ELISA and 34% (95% confidence interval, 8.2–66.1%; P = 0.007) for the Latex method. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the Latex method is equally as efficacious as the validated ELISA in classifying patients into cutoff points established by prospective studies for risk stratification for coronary and cerebrovascular disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/clinchem/45.12.2136

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rifai, N., Tracy, R. P., & Ridker, P. M.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Rifai, Nader
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
1999-12-01
Volume
45
Issue
12
Pages
2136-2141
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2148322270
Cited by
613
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 25
FWCI
26.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL058755, HL-58755)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Biomarkers in Disease Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Peripheral Artery Disease Management
Keywords
high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, ELISA comparison, peripheral arterial disease, cardiovascular risk prediction, risk stratification, automated immunoassay, asymptomatic men
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antioxidants, Aspirin, C-Reactive Protein, Double-Blind Method, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Humans, Immunoassay, Latex, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Case-Control Studies, Peripheral Vascular Diseases, beta Carotene, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review