Cardiology Research and Practice

Cardiology Research and Practice / 2014 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 |Article ID 605810 | 10 pages |

C-Reactive Protein: Clinical and Epidemiological Perspectives

Academic Editor: H. O. Ventura
Received31 Jul 2013
Accepted05 Dec 2013
Published06 Feb 2014


An important etiopathogenic component of cardiovascular disease is atherosclerosis, with inflammation being an essential event in the pathophysiology of all clinical pictures it comprises. In recent years, several molecules implicated in this process have been studied in order to assess cardiovascular risk in both primary and secondary prevention. C-reactive protein is a plasmatic protein of the pentraxin family and an acute phase reactant, very useful as a general inflammation marker. Currently, it is one of the most profoundly researched molecules in the cardiovascular field, yet its clinical applicability regarding cardiovascular risk remains an object of discussion, considered by some as a simple marker and by others as a true risk factor. In this sense, numerous studies propose its utilization as a predictor of cardiovascular risk through the use of high-sensitivity quantification methods for the detection of values <1 mg/L, following strict international guidelines. Increasing interest in these clinical findings has led to the creation of modified score systems including C-reactive protein concentrations, in order to enhance risk scores commonly used in clinical practice and offer improved care to patients with cardiovascular disease, which remains the first cause of mortality at the worldwide, national, and regional scenarios.

1. Introduction

Owing to profound research and identification of the etiopathogenic basis of cardiovascular disease (CVD), as well as the diverse mechanisms implicated in the onset and progression of atherosclerosis [1], current studies in this area focus in the characterization of biomarkers for the early detection of the inflammatory activation underlying this process. In turn, this has improved methods for the estimation of cardiovascular risk (CVR), atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and even subsequent ischemic events [2], by establishing revised initial management measures based on the newfound greater knowledge on this group of ailments. Likewise, these molecules may complement the predictive ability of many classic CVD risk factors and serve as valuable prognostic information for several associated adverse effects [3, 4].

The biomolecule with the greater body of research both from a molecular and epidemiological perspective is C-reactive protein (CRP), a plasma protein of the pentraxin family and an acute phase reactant, which displays high sensitivity as a general inflammation marker [5]. Numerous studies have demonstrated the active participation of this molecule in the atherogenic process [6], and due to the discovery of high-sensitivity techniques for its determination, its stable plasmatic concentrations, and its relatively low costs, it may be of great use in the identification of patients at high risk, as a prognostic indicator and even as a therapeutic target in large populations [7].

Studies surrounding this molecule started over a decade ago, statistically associating the onset of coronary events, such as myocardial infarction (MI) and angor pectoris, with elevated serum levels of this protein [8]. From this point, experimental and epidemiological research [9, 10] has aimed at the elucidation of the true effect and predictive power of CRP in CVD, for both primary and secondary prevention, as an element to consider in equations for the calculation of absolute CVR in specific populations and as a parameter to be evaluated in all patients with an acute coronary event and patients undergoing therapeutic procedures in this field [11].

In this scenario, it is necessary to consider the diverse perspectives outlined worldwide and assess opinions for and against this controversial protein, in order to ultimately analyze the inclusion of its routine determination as part of the diagnostic work-up in patients with CVD in our population.

2. Cardiovascular Risk: Current Tendencies

According to the Framingham Heart Study, CVD comprises a broad spectrum of pathologies including coronary disease (MI, coronary insufficiency, and angor pectoris), cerebrovascular disease (ischemic ictus, hemorrhagic ictus, and transient ischemic events), peripheral artery disease (intermittent claudication), and heart failure (HF) [1214]. For the clinical-epidemiological assessment of CVD, several studies [15, 16] have proposed the implementation of concepts such as absolute cardiovascular risk (aCVR), also known as global or total risk, which represents the probability of developing one of these disorders in a given period of time [17], and relative cardiovascular risk (rCVR), which accounts for the probability of developing a cardiovascular event in subjects with certain risk factors compared with individuals of the same age and gender without such factors [12].

The first great-scale epidemiologic study for the determination of the main causes of CVD was the Framingham Heart Study [18]. The algorithms resulting from this research have been validated and widely utilized in clinical practice for the estimation of aCVR in various populations worldwide [12], since they allow for risk stratification. These equations are based in cardiovascular risk factors (CRF) such as hypertension (HT), diabetes mellitus (DM), and dyslipidemia, among others. Nevertheless, results obtained from the application of these equations are not applicable in certain demographies, such as Spain, Italy, China, and Chile [1921], where the risk of developing CVD is relatively low.

Indeed, although scoring systems for the estimation of aCVR are important tools, they display several limitations: modifications in long-standing population-specific patterns of disease onset—upon which CVR is estimated—may distort their clinical application. Moreover, most of these algorithms do not evaluate CVD in a global manner, but they are formulated to predict specific isolated components of it, especially coronary disease (CD) [17, 2225], in opposition to the multifactorial concept of the etiology to which these equations for estimated aCVR are geared for [12, 18].

3. Cardiovascular Risk Factors: Classic versus Novel (Table 1)

Classic factors (reference)Novel factors (reference)

(i) Age [26](i) C-reactive protein [27]
(ii) Family history [28](ii) Lipoprotein[a] [29]
(iii) Race [30](iii) Pentraxin 3 [31]
(iv) Arterial hypertension [32] (iv) Leukocytes CD31+ [33]
(v) Diabetes mellitus [34](v) Homocysteine [35]
(vi) Smoking [36](vi) Fibrinogen [37]
(vii) Dyslipidemia [38](vii) Adiponectin [39]
(viii) Obesity [40](viii) Alcohol [41]
(ix) Sedentary lifestyle [42]

A risk factor is a measurable element or characteristic that shares a causal relationship with an increment in the onset frequency of a given disease, constituting a significant independent predictive component for the risk of the developing this condition [18]. CRF have been described since the 1930s, reaching widespread notoriety in 1948 with the initiation of the Framingham Heart Study, which years later would define what are nowadays considered classic risk factors, in consonance and corroboration with other great epidemiologic studies [43, 44].

The most common classification of CRF labels them as either modifiable or nonmodifiable. Nonmodifiable CRF include age (men >45 years and women >55 years or menopausal), race (black), gender (male), and genetics (family history of CVD), while modifiable CRF cover obesity, HT, dyslipidemia, smoking, DM, and a sedentary lifestyle [22].

Throughout the years, interest has focused on the improvement of CVR assessment, given the rising incidence of CVD. This has led to the realization of numerous multidisciplinary studies linking the origin and evolution of CVD with new biochemical markers. These biomarkers have displayed an important predictive ability for the onset of cardiovascular events, as they have been shown to be closely related to the pathophysiological mechanisms of these diseases, with both local and systemic implications [45, 46]. Each of these molecules exhibits distinct biochemical features, including factors associated with low-grade inflammation (CRP, vascular adhesion molecules, interleukins, pentraxins, leukocytes, etc.) [31, 33, 4749], components of the lipid profile (lipoprotein[a], apolipoproteins, triacylglycerides, etc.) [29, 50, 51], and elements linked to prothrombotic states (fibrinogen, homocysteine, D-dimer, etc.) [35, 37, 52].

From this diverse assortment of candidates, CRP appears to be the most profoundly studied regarding inflammation in the cardiovascular field [53]. Not only has CRP been associated with the chain of events occurring at the endothelium within the atherosclerotic process [54, 55], but it has also been linked with a direct, independent association with future cardiovascular events in several great-scale epidemiologic reports [27, 56, 57], as well as with other disorders of metabolic origin, both in adult and pediatric populations [58, 59].

4. Clinical Applicability of C-Reactive Protein in Risk Assessment

4.1. C-Reactive Protein as a Cardiovascular Risk Factor

Kroop and Shackman [60] were the first to report alterations of CRP levels in patients with MI. Three years later, Gurevin and Kozonis [61] proposed this protein as a reflection of the natural history of this disorder, but it was only in the mid-1990s that research by Ridker et al. [62] suggested this molecule to acquire greater relevance within the group of novel risk factors, after closely linking it not only with MI but also with cerebrovascular events.

Currently, it is well known that CRP levels may rise due to a several processes of inflammatory etiology (Table 2). This lack of specificity may concern many physicians when assessing CRP in the clinical scenario. However, methods for the quantitative determination of this acute phase reactant have reached detection thresholds lower than 1 mg/L [63], with a mean serum concentration of 0.8 mg/L in young adults with no underlying inflammatory processes [5]. These newer quantification techniques have been dubbed “high-sensitivity” and are essential for the consideration of this protein as a CRF. Initially, high-sensitivity quantification methods were based on ELISA, utilized in several population studies despite its cumbersome routine use in clinical laboratories [64]. As a consequence, more accessible methods, such as immunonephelometric techniques [65] and, more recently, automatized immunoluminometry and immunoturbidimetry, have been implemented, improving the sensitivity of the quantification even in cases of very low concentrations [66]. Additionally, these are inexpensive techniques, an important aspect regarding its routine use in clinical practice [63].

Acute phase response with high CRP release

InfectionBacteria, mycobacteria, viruses, and fungi
Postinfectious allergic complicationsRheumatoid arthritis and erythema nodosum
Inflammatory diseasesCrohn’s disease, psoriatic arthritis, systemic vasculitis, and Reiter’s disease
NecrosisMyocardial infarction and acute pancreatitis
TraumaSurgeries, fractures, and burns

Acute phase response with low CRP release

Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, ulcerative colitis, and dermatomyositis

In light of these advantages and findings from several epidemiological studies, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Heart Association (AHA) established in 2003 the first guidelines for the interpretation of markers of CVR, with special emphasis on the use of CRP in primary prevention. In addition, the distribution of CRP serum concentrations in tertiles was presented: first tertile: <1 mg/L, second tertile: 1–3 mg/L, and third tertile: >3 mg/L. This model is widely accepted in clinical practice given that, after adjustment for other CRF, subjects with CRP levels between 1 and 3 mg/L had a 50% greater CVR than those with concentrations <1 mg/L. Likewise, individuals with levels >3 mg/L had a CVR approximately twice as high as those with values <1 mg/L. With this outline, the CDC designated subjects within the first tertile as low risk, those in the second tertile as average risk, and those in the third tertile as high risk of developing CVD [67, 68]. The utilization of CRP in the assessment of patients with CVD must be accompanied by a detailed clinical record and an adequate interpretation in order to avoid false positives. Measurement of CRP should be omitted if infection is suspected, or if there is history of a traumatic event within the previous 2 weeks. If concentrations >10 mg/L are obtained, the measurement should be repeated, and 2 subsequent determinations should be realized with an interval of 1 month, selecting the lowest value returned for the assessment of CVR [63, 68, 69]. Figure 1 displays the recommended scheme for the interpretation of CRP levels for CVR stratification.

CRP cut-off values have been proposed for the evaluation of patients in 3 distinct clinical conditions: apparently healthy subjects, stable patients with CVR or diagnosed CVD, and patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) [2]. Nonetheless, the first scenario is particularly important, considering that the estimation of aCVR is pivotal for the initiation of preventive and therapeutic management. For example, individuals with a high risk as estimated by the equations from the Framingham Heart Study (entailing >20% risk of developing CD in 10 years) are indicated to receive intensive medical intervention and/or pharmacologic therapeutic management. The latest guidelines published by the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) recommend the quantification of CRP in patients with moderate risk (10–20% risk of developing CD in 10 years by the Framingham classification) and in patients that raise doubts regarding their management. These criteria allow for the evaluation of the application of intensive therapeutic measures including both lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy, with the quantification of CRP in primary attention being classified as a Class Ia indication [68, 70].

The importance of CRP assessment prompted Ridker et al. [74] to develop, validate, and demonstrate a project named the “Reynolds Risk Score,” a high-precision predictive model for CVR in 10 years, initially created for women and later for men [75], which included the use of high-sensitivity CRP and family history of CD within its clinical algorithm, along with traditional risk factors: age, blood pressure, smoking, total cholesterol, and HDL-C concentration, allowing for the reclassification of women and men in distinct CVR categories. A meta-analysis of over 50 studies realized by Kaptoge et al. [76] revealed CRP concentrations to have a strong association with mortality of vascular origin, as well as with risk of CD and ischemic ictus. Nevertheless, this association with ischemic vascular disease may depend fundamentally on conventional risk factors.

4.2. C-Reactive Protein in Acute Coronary Events

Similar to recommendations with respect to primary prevention, the AHA and CDC suggest the determination of high-sensitivity CRP serum concentrations in patients with SCA, with a cut-off of >10 mg/L as a predictive factor of subsequent acute events [68, 69]. Indeed, these standard have been recently ratified by several clinical guidelines and population studies [70, 78]. Figure 1 shows the CRP cut-off values used in both primary and secondary prevention.

Indeed, research has covered the analysis of SCA patients both with and without ST segment elevation [79, 80], with the fundamental objective of identifying subjects at high risk for recurrence of these events and death [81]. On the other hand, its utilization has also been suggested as a prognostic marker in mid- and long-term after an acute event, independently of other markers such as troponins and B-type natriuretic peptide. In this sense, the joint analysis of Troponin-CRP is a very useful assessment method given the additive behavior of both biomarkers [82]. This practice would enhance the identification of patients with a high-risk prognosis and the necessity of intervention or “aggressive” monitoring [67]. Nonetheless, efforts are still directed to irrefutably demonstrate that this molecule improves risk estimation in all patients [83].

Therefore, novel research, such as that proposed by Schiele et al. [86], aims to determine the predictive value of the “Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events” (GRACE), a clinical scale designed for the estimation of mortality risk or HF risk in patients with SCA, with the inclusion of CRP serum concentrations in the model. Results have demonstrated that the addition of this molecule improves the classification of these patients in distinct risk categories [86]. Tables 3 and 4 summarize studies analyzing CRP for both primary and secondary prevention.

Author (reference)SampleResults

Ridker et al. [62]543 apparently healthy menSerum CRP levels predict MI and CVD: The quartile with the highest CRP levels had a greater risk of MI (RR: 2.9; ) and CVD (RR: 1.9; ) than the lowest quartile.

Ridker et al. [71]366 apparently healthy women (122 developed a cardiovascular event)Serum CRP levels of patients who had a cardiovascular event were higher than control patients ( ).
Patients with the highest levels had a greater risk of developing MI or CVD (RR: 7.3; ).

Ridker et al. [72]27939 apparently healthy womenCRP is a more powerful predictor of cardiovascular events than LDL-C.
The RR for a first cardiovascular event was, according to CRP quintiles: 1.4–1.6–2.0–2.3 ( ).

Cesari et al. [73]2225 participants aged 70–79 years without previously diagnosed cardiovascular diseaseInflammatory markers are predictors of cardiovascular events in elderly patients. CRP was associated with CHF (RR: 1.48; IC: 1.23–1.78).

Ridker et al. [74]24558 initially healthy women (≥45 years of age)2 new algorithms were developed for the calculation of global cardiovascular risk, reclassifying a great part of women with average risk according to conventional scoring systems.
Ridker et al. [75]10724 initially healthy women (≥50 years of age)A new prediction model was developed for the calculation of global cardiovascular risk, including CRP and family history of cardiovascular events. Over 20.2% of the population was reclassified from the original distribution of conventional scoring systems.

Kaptoge et al. [76]160309 subjects without history of vascular disease (54 prospective studies)The association of CRP with vascular disease depends on other inflammatory markers and classic risk factors. After multiple adjustments, the RR for coronary disease was (1.23; IC: 1.07–1.42), for CVD (1.32; IC: 1.18–1.49), and for vascular cause mortality (1.34; IC: 1.18–1.52).

Maiorana et al. [77]37 patients with 3 or more cardiovascular risk factors10 patients had LDL-C >100 mg/dL, fibrinogen >350 mg/dL, and CRP >2.6 mg/L; 6 of these patients presented a positive ischemia by exercise testing and coronary disease.

CRP: C-reactive protein; MI: myocardial infarction; CVD: cerebrovascular disease; RR: relative risk; LDL-C: low-density lipoproteins; CHF: congestive heart failure; CI: confidence interval.

Author (reference)SampleResults

Pietila et al. [84]188 patients with MISerum CRP levels in patients with MI predict mortality up to 6 months after the event. Highest levels were found between the 2nd and 4th days after infarction, the highest mean concentration being 65 mg/L; IC: 58–71 in patients who survived 24 months.

Gussekloo et al. [85]245 patients (80 deceased due to CVD after 5-year follow-up)CRP is a powerful yet unspecific risk factor for CVD in the elderly. Serum CRP levels of those who died due to CVD were twice as high than those of control subjects (5.7 mg/L versus 2.7 mg/L; ).

Mueller et al. [79]1042 ACS patients without ST segment elevationCRP is an independent predictor of mortality short- and long-term in ACS patients without ST segment elevation who received early invasive treatment. In-hospital mortality was 1.2% in patients with (<3 mg/L), 0.8% (1–3 mg/L), and 3.7% (>10 mg/L), with RR = 4.2 for mortality.

Morrow et al. [78]3813 ACS patientsAfter multiple adjustments, patients with serum CRP levels 1–3 mg/L had a greater mortality risk (HR: 2.3; IC: 1.2–4.6) in comparison with those with levels <1 mg/L. The mortality risk for patients >3 mg/L was even higher (HR: 3.7; IC: 1.9–7.2).

Schiele et al. [86]1901 ACS patientsCRP is modest yet independent predictor of mortality within the first month after ACS. Subjects with levels >22 mg/L (4th quartile) had 4 times greater mortality risk within 30 days.

Caixeta et al. [80]2974 ACS patientsPatients with the highest serum CRP levels (4th quartile) presented a greater mortality risk within 30 days in comparison to the 1st quartile (2.3 versus 1.3%; ), as well as within a year after the event (5.5 versus 2.8%; ).

CRP: C-reactive protein; MI: myocardial infarction; CI: confidence interval; CVD: cerebrovascular disease; ACS: acute coronary syndrome; RR: relative risk; HR: hazard ratios.

5. Is CRP a Risk Marker or a Risk Factor?

According to official definition of the United States National Institute of Health (NIH), a biomarker is “a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention” [87]. The association with any given disease may be exclusively statistical and it does not require an established causal relationship. Meanwhile, a risk factor is associated with a given pathology due to its participation in the etiopathogenic mechanisms triggered by itself [88] (Figure 2).

Regarding CRP, a controversial worldwide debate persists over its participation in CVD. Several retrospective and prospective studies, as well as meta-analyses, have described an association with MI [71, 72, 84, 89, 90], coronary insufficiency [4, 73, 91], cerebrovascular disease [85], and peripheral artery disease [92], behaving as an important mortality predictor [69]. As such, a large portion of scientific opinion supports CRP as a risk marker, in response to the inflammatory process within the atherosclerotic plaque and other previously established CRF [88]. Conversely, its role as a CRF is heavily debated [77, 93, 94]. Despite the large body of evidence associating CRP with atherosclerotic lesions, the lack of a direct correlation between its concentration and the extension of atherosclerosis as determined by imaging techniques constitutes one of the main arguments for those who oppose this much-disputed mechanism [88], along with its well-known associations with other risk factors included in the Framingham equations [95]. However, we consider there is sufficient evidence that shows an intimate association between this molecule and cardiovascular events, both at a clinical and molecular level, granting its consideration not only as a biomarker, but also as a true risk factor [96].

Likewise, various reports have demonstrated that initiation of pharmacologic treatment prompted by elevated CRP levels may lower the onset of coronary events both in primary and secondary prevention, as suggested by the AirForce/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS), wherein the administration of lovastatin reduced the frequency of coronary events in patients under primary prevention with low/normal LDL-C levels and high CRP concentrations [97]. Similarly, secondary prevention studies such as the Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering (REVERSAL) study show the use of higher statin doses (Atorvastatin 80 mg versus Pravastatin 40 mg) to significantly lower both LDL-C and CRP levels after 18 months of therapy. Amelioration of atherosclerotic progression was also found as assessed by intravascular ultrasound, with a significant independent correlation between decreased CRP and atherosclerotic progression [98]. These results, in addition to others such as the JUPITER study [99], demonstrate the usefulness of CRP for the identification of subjects in risk, and they also hint towards its potential role as a therapeutic target in the atherosclerotic process [100]. Therefore, future research should continue to more thoroughly study the effects of the reduction of serum CRP levels.

6. Conclusions

Given the ever-increasing problematic that CVD represents nowadays worldwide, it is necessary to exhaustively evaluate all subjects who may develop them. This possibility may be measured or quantified through scoring systems created based on the Framingham Heart Study, which allows for the calculation of absolute risk of developing a cardiovascular event based on risk factors inherent to each studied individual. Traditional risk factors are proved predictive elements for the development of disease that share a causal relationship with it. In the case of CVD, these include age, gender, obesity, HT, dyslipidemia, smoking, DM, and a sedentary lifestyle, among others.

The designation of new risk factors stemming from advances in the comprehension of the inflammatory physiopathology of CVD has led research to try and elucidate which of these novel and emergent elements display all required criteria to be considered true risk factors, and which have solely exhibited a casual statistical association. C-reactive protein is one of the numerous molecules that fit this description, but its properties and features have led it to become one of the main targets for researchers worldwide. Its utilization in the clinical setting is still discussed by a myriad of organizations, as well as its role in CVD. In this aspect, CRP is more than a simple biomarker and current findings tightly link this protein with the atheromatous plaque. Its implementation is based on the guidelines suggested by the NACB, which delimit its application to a certain population at risk, and sets a cut-off point for its serum levels.

However, many aspects still remain to be elucidated, requiring the assessment of CRP behavior across ethnic groups (Asians, Africans, and Hispanics) since most studies have been limited to European and North American cohorts. Likewise, further research would clarify the true role of CRP in the development of CVD, establishing its relative importance regarding other CRF, which is a particularly relevant aspect given the potential benefit that may be rendered by broadening the spectrum of variables included in CVR-estimating calculation tools [101].

Furthermore, research should be expanded to further age groups, analyze the impact of CRP in coronary event prognosis, and decipher the phenomena linking it to the atherogenic process, in order to exploit its potential efficacy as a therapeutic target [102]. The answers to these matters would allow the confirmation of the feasibility of CRP quantification and the formulation of management guidelines for our patients, based in the measurement and the clinical picture of each individual.

It should be noted that despite the high prevalence of CVD in our population, CRP quantification remains a nonroutine procedure, neither in primary attention nor in specialist management. Therefore, raising awareness among all health personnel represents a fundamental basis for this kind of studies, which should be readily spread in order to offer a more efficient management to our patients. This is especially relevant for population reports such as our local study, which shows a particular behavior for CRP, with levels differing from those of most other worldwide studies—with lower average serum concentrations—as well as a close association with the metabolic syndrome, especially with high triacylglyceride levels and elevated waist circumference values (with cut-off points higher than those proposed by all current consensuses) [103]. These findings demonstrate the need to evaluate the behavior of these metabolic variables in each region in order to assess the comparative influence these cardiometabolic alterations exert over CVR and to set management guidelines adapted to each specific cohort.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.


  1. P. Libby, P. M. Ridker, and A. Maseri, “Inflammation and atherosclerosis,” Circulation, vol. 105, no. 9, pp. 1135–1143, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. S. Blankenberg and S. Yusuf, “The inflammatory hypothesis: any progress in risk stratification and therapeutic targets?” Circulation, vol. 114, no. 15, pp. 1557–1560, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. S. H. Abbasi and M. A. Boroumand, “Expanded network of inflammatory markers of atherogenesis: where are we now?” Open Cardiovascular Medicine Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 38–44, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  4. P. Figueroa, I. Hamad, F. J. Pascual García, A. F. Carazo Marín, M. A. Casado Almeida, and A. García Forcada, “Proteína C reactiva en el pronóstico de la insuficiencia cardiaca,” Revista Costarricense de Cardiologia, vol. 9, pp. 5–10, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  5. M. B. Pepys and G. M. Hirschfield, “C-reactive protein: a critical update,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 111, no. 12, pp. 1805–1812, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. R. J. Bisoendial, S. M. Boekholdt, M. Vergeer, E. S. G. Stroes, and J. J. P. Kastelein, “C-reactive protein is a mediator of cardiovascular disease,” European Heart Journal, vol. 31, no. 17, pp. 2087–2095, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. F. Heres-Álvarez and A. Peix-González, “La proteína C reactiva como blanco terapéutico en la prevención cardiovascular: ¿ficción o realidad?” Revista Española de Cardiología, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 30–35, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. S. G. Thompson, J. Kienast, S. D. M. Pyke et al., “Hemostatic factors and the risk of myocardial infarction or sudden death in patients with angina pectoris,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 332, no. 10, pp. 635–641, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. M. M. Turu, M. Slevin, S. Matou et al., “C-reactive protein exerts angiogenic effects on vascular endothelial cells and modulates associated signalling pathways and gene expression,” BMC Cell Biology, vol. 9, article 47, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. P. M. Ridker, “C-reactive protein and the prediction of cardiovascular events among those at intermediate risk. moving an inflammatory hypothesis toward consensus,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 49, no. 21, pp. 2129–2138, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. E. T. H. Yeh, “High-sensitivity C-reactive protein as a risk assessment tool for cardiovascular disease,” Clinical Cardiology, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 408–412, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  12. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Risk estimation and the prevention of cardiovascular disease, A national clinical guideline, 2007.
  13. L. A. Cupples and R. B. D’Agostino, “Section 34: some risk factors related to the annual incidence of cardiovascular disease and death in pooled repeated biennial measurements,” in Framingham Heart Study: 30 Year Follow-Up, W. B. Kannel, P. A. Wolf, and R. J. Garrison, Eds., Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Md, USA, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  14. R. B. D'Agostino Sr., R. S. Vasan, M. J. Pencina et al., “General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the framingham heart study,” Circulation, vol. 117, no. 6, pp. 743–753, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance, Guidelines for the assessment of absolute cardiovascular disease risk, 2009.
  16. S. Spitalnic, Risk Assessment I: Relative Risk and Absolute Risk Reduction, Hospital physician, 2005.
  17. P. Amouyel, A. Deverly, M. Andrejak et al., “Cardiovascular global risk: definition, evaluation and management strategies,” Therapie, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 533–539, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  18. H. R. Black, “Cardiovascular risk factors,” in Yale University School of Medicine Heart Book, B. L. Zaret, M. Moser, and L. S. Cohen, Eds., pp. 23–35, Hearst Books, New York, NY, USA, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  19. F. Zannad, “Cardiovascular high-risk patients—treat to protect, but whom?” Medscape General Medicine, vol. 10, supplement 2, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  20. G. Icaza, L. Núñez, J. Marrugat, V. Mujica, M. C. Escobar et al., “Estimación de riesgo de enfermedad coronaria mediante la función de Framingham adaptada para la población chilena,” Revista Médica de Chile, vol. 137, pp. 1273–1282, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  21. J. Liu, Y. Hong, R. B. D'Agostino Sr. et al., “Predictive value for the Chinese population of the Framingham CHD risk assessment tool compared with the Chinese multi-provincial cohort study,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 291, no. 21, pp. 2591–2599, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. J. I. Cleeman, “Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (adult treatment panel III),” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 285, no. 19, pp. 2486–2497, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  23. G. Assmann, P. Cullen, and H. Schulte, “Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study,” Circulation, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 310–315, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. Ferrario, P. Chiodini, L. E. Chambless et al., “Prediction of coronary events in a low incidence population: assessing accuracy of the CUORE Cohort Study prediction equation,” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 413–421, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. X.-F. Zhang, J. Attia, C. D'Este, X.-H. Yu, and X.-G. Wu, “A risk score predicted coronary heart disease and stroke in a Chinese cohort,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 951–958, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. P. Jousilahti, E. Vartiainen, J. Tuomilehto, and P. Puska, “Sex, age, cardiovascular risk factors, and coronary heart disease: a prospective follow-up study of 14 786 middle-aged men and women in Finland,” Circulation, vol. 99, no. 9, pp. 1165–1172, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  27. P. M. Ridker, J. J. P. Kastelein, J. Genest, and W. Koenig, “C-reactive protein and cholesterol are equally strong predictors of cardiovascular risk and both are important for quality clinical care,” European Heart Journal, vol. 34, pp. 1258–1261, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  28. J. Šimon and H. Rosolová, “Family history—and independent risk factors for coronary heart disease, it is time to be practical,” European Heart Journal, vol. 23, no. 21, pp. 1637–1638, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. B. G. Nordestgaard, M. J. Chapman, K. Ray et al., “Lipoprotein(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor: current status,” European Heart Journal, vol. 31, no. 23, pp. 2844–2853, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. A. K. Kurian and K. M. Cardarelli, “Racial and ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review,” Ethnicity and Disease, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 143–152, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  31. F. Bonacina, A. Baragetti, A. L. Catapano, and G. D. Norata, “Long pentraxin 3: experimental and clinical relevance in cardiovascular diseases,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2013, Article ID 725102, 10 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. W. B. Kannel, “Blood pressure as a cardiovascular risk factor: prevention and treatment,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 275, no. 20, pp. 1571–1576, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. Y. Ge, S. Cheng, M. G. Larson, A. Ghorbani et al., “Circulating CD31+ leukocyte frequency is associated with cardiovascular risk factors,” Atherosclerosis, vol. 229, pp. 228–233, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  34. W. B. Kannel and D. L. McGee, “Diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors: the Framingham study,” Circulation, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 8–13, 1979. View at: Google Scholar
  35. S. R. Lentz and W. G. Haynes, “Homocysteine: is it a clinically important cardiovascular risk factor?” Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, vol. 71, no. 9, pp. 729–734, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  36. J. F. Price, P. I. Mowbray, A. J. Lee, A. Rumley, G. D. O. Lowe, and F. G. R. Fowkes, “Relationship between smoking and cardiovascular risk factors in the development of peripheral arterial disease and coronary artery disease: edinburgh artery study,” European Heart Journal, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 344–353, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. J. J. Stec, H. Silbershatz, G. H. Tofler et al., “Association of fibrinogen with cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascluar disease the Framingham offspring population,” Circulation, vol. 102, no. 14, pp. 1634–1638, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  38. K. M. Anderson, W. P. Castelli, and D. Levy, “Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham Study,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 257, no. 16, pp. 2176–2180, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  39. V. Barrios, R. Gomez-Huelgas, R. Rodríguez, and P. Pablos-Velasco, “Adiponectina, un factor de riesgo cardiovascular emergente. Estudio REFERENCE,” Revista Española de Cardiología, vol. 61, pp. 1159–1167, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  40. J. R. Sowers, “Obesity as a cardiovascular risk factor,” The American Journal of Medicine, vol. 115, supplement 8A, pp. 37S–41S, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  41. I. B. Puddey, V. Rakic, S. B. Dimmitt, and L. J. Beilin, “Influence of pattern of drinking on cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk factors—a review,” Addiction, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 649–663, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  42. F. C. H. Bijnen, C. J. Caspersen, and W. L. Mosterd, “Physical inactivity as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a WHO and International Society and Federation of cardiology position statement,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  43. K. M. Anderson, W. P. Castelli, and D. Levy, “Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham Study,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 257, no. 16, pp. 2176–2180, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  44. A. Kagan, B. R. Harris, and W. Winkelstein Jr., “Epidemiologic studies of coronary heart disease and stroke in Japanese men living in Japan, Hawaii and California: demographic, physical, dietary and biochemical characteristics,” Journal of Chronic Diseases, vol. 27, no. 7-8, pp. 345–364, 1974. View at: Google Scholar
  45. Y. Ge and T. J. Wang, “Identifying novel biomarkers for cardiovascular disease risk prediction,” Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 272, no. 5, pp. 430–439, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  46. J. E. Montgomery and J. R. Brown, “Metabolic biomarkers for predicting cardiovascular disease,” Vascular Health and Risk Management, vol. 9, pp. 37–45, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  47. P. W. F. Wilson, “Assessing coronary heart disease risk with traditional and novel risk factors,” Clinical Cardiology, vol. 27, supplement 3, no. 6, pp. III7–III11, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  48. K. Peter, P. Nawroth, C. Conradt et al., “Circulating vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 correlates with the extent of human atherosclerosis in contrast to circulating intercellular adhesion molecule-1, E-selectin, P-selectin, and thrombomodulin,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 505–512, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  49. D. Su, Z. Li, X. Li, Y. Chen, Y. Zhang et al., “Association between serum interleukin-6 concentration and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2013, Article ID 726178, 7 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. N. Forti and J. Diament, “Apolipoprotein B and A-I: cardiovascular risk factor?” Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 276–282, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  51. A. Jones, “Triglycerides and cardiovascular risk,” Heart, vol. 99, pp. 1–2, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  52. P. Willeit, A. Thompson, T. Aspelund et al., “Hemostatic factors and risk of coronary heart disease in general populations: new prospective study and updated meta-analyses,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, Article ID e55175, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  53. F. Manzur, Alvear Ciro, and A. N. Alayon, “Papel de la proteína c reactiva en las enfermedades cardiovasculares,” Revista Colombiana de Cardiología, vol. 18, pp. 273–278, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  54. H. H. Shih, S. Zhang, W. Cao et al., “CRP is a novel ligand for the oxidized LDL receptor LOX-1,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 296, no. 5, pp. H1643–H1650, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. J. Frostegård, “Immunity, atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease,” BMC Medicine, vol. 11, article 117, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  56. M. Flores, S. Barquera, C. Carrión et al., “Concentraciones de proteína C reactiva en adultos mexicanos: alta prevalencia de un factor de riesgo cardiovascular,” Salud Pública de México, vol. 49, pp. s348–s360, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  57. P. Jeemon, D. Prabhakaran, L. Ramakrishnan et al., “Association of high sensitive C-Reactive Protein (hsCRP) with established cardiovascular risk factors in the Indian population,” Nutrition and Metabolism, vol. 8, article 19, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. A. Razavi, M. R. Baghshani, A. A. Rahsepar et al., “Association between C-reactive protein, pro-oxidant-antioxidant balance and traditional cardiovascular risk factors in an Iranian population,” Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, vol. 50, pp. 115–121, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  59. M. Acevedo, P. Arnáiz, S. Barja et al., “Relationship of C-reactive protein to adiposity, cardiovascular risk factors and subclinical atherosclerosis in healthy children,” Revista Espanola de Cardiologia, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 1051–1058, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. I. G. Kroop and N. H. Shackman, “Level of C-reactive protein as a measure of acute myocardial infarction,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 95–97, 1954. View at: Google Scholar
  61. I. Gurevin and M. C. Kozonis, “The value of the C-reactive protein determination in coronary artery disease,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 79–85, 1957. View at: Google Scholar
  62. P. M. Ridker, M. Cushman, M. J. Stampfer, R. P. Tracy, and C. H. Hennekens, “Inflammation, aspirin, and the risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy men,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 336, no. 14, pp. 973–979, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. J. I. Ferrer, “Proteína C Reactiva (PCR) y ateroesclerosis,” CENIC Ciencias Biológicas, vol. 36, pp. 79–84, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  64. R. P. Tracy, R. N. Lemaitre, B. M. Psaty et al., “Relationship of C-reactive protein to risk of cardiovascular disease in the elderly: results from the cardiovascular health study and the rural health promotion project,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1121–1127, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  65. T. B. Ledue, D. L. Weiner, J. D. Sipe, S. E. Poulin, M. F. Collins, and N. Rifai, “Analytical evaluation of particle-enhanced immunonephelometric assays for C-reactive protein, serum amyloid A and mannose-binding protein in human serum,” Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 745–753, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  66. W. L. Roberts, L. Moulton, T. C. Law et al., “Evaluation of nine automated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein methods: implications for clinical and epidemiological applications. Part 2,” Clinical Chemistry, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 418–425, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  67. E. T. H. Yeh and J. T. Willerson, “Coming of age of C-reactive protein: using inflammation markers in cardiology,” Circulation, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 370–372, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. T. A. Pearson, G. A. Mensah, R. W. Alexander et al., “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, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 499–511, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. P. S. Jellinger, D. A. Smith, A. E. Mehta et al., “American association of clinical endocrinologists' guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of atherosclerosis,” Endocrine Practice, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–78, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  70. G. L. Myers, R. H. M. Christenson, M. Cushman et al., “National academy of clinical biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines: emerging biomarkers for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Clinical Chemistry, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 378–384, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. P. M. Ridker, J. E. Buring, J. Shih, M. Matias, and C. H. Hennekens, “Prospective study of C-reactive protein and the risk of future cardiovascular events among apparently healthy women,” Circulation, vol. 98, no. 8, pp. 731–733, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  72. P. M. Ridker, N. Rifai, L. Rose, J. E. Buring, and N. R. Cook, “Comparison of C-reactive protein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the prediction of first cardiovascular events,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 347, no. 20, pp. 1557–1565, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. M. Cesari, B. W. J. H. Penninx, A. B. Newman et al., “Inflammatory markers and onset of cardiovascular events: results from the Health ABC Study,” Circulation, vol. 108, no. 19, pp. 2317–2322, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. P. M. Ridker, J. E. Buring, N. Rifai, and N. R. Cook, “Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardiovascular risk in women: the reynolds risk score,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 297, no. 6, pp. 611–619, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. P. M. Ridker, N. P. Paynter, N. Rifai, J. M. Gaziano, and N. R. Cook, “C-reactive protein and parental history improve global cardiovascular risk prediction: the reynolds risk score for men,” Circulation, vol. 118, no. 22, pp. 2243–2251, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. S. Kaptoge, E. Di Angelantonio, G. Lowe et al., “The emerging risk factors collaboration. C-reactive protein concentration and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality: an individual participant meta-analysis,” The Lancet, vol. 375, pp. 132–140, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  77. C. Maiorana, J. Duque, M. Pellino et al., “Más allá de la prevención primaria: utilidad de la Proteína C Reactiva Ultra sensible (PCRus), como herramienta en el diagnóstico de enfermedad arterial coronaria,” Síndrome Cardiometabólico, vol. 1, pp. 40–44, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  78. D. A. Morrow, J. A. de Lemos, M. S. Sabatine et al., “Clinical relevance of C-reactive protein during follow-up of patients with acute coronary syndromes in the Aggrastat-to-Zocor Trial,” Circulation, vol. 114, no. 4, pp. 281–288, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. C. Mueller, H. J. Buettner, J. M. Hodgson et al., “Inflammation and long-term mortality after non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome treated with a very early invasive strategy in 1042 consecutive patients,” Circulation, vol. 105, no. 12, pp. 1412–1415, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. A. Caixeta, G. W. Stone, R. Mehran et al., “Predictive value of C-reactive protein on 30-day and 1-year mortality in acute coronary syndromes: an analysis from the ACUITY trial,” Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 154–164, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. R. Arroyo-Espleguiro, P. Avanzas, and J. C. Kaski, “Enfermedad cardiovascular aterosclerótica: la utilidad de la proteína C reactiva en la identificación de la placa “vulnerable” y del paciente ‘vulnerable’,” Revista Española de Cardiología, vol. 57, pp. 375–378, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  82. V. Bodi and J. Sanchís, “La proteína C reactiva en el síndrome coronario agudo. Una mirada atrás para seguir avanzando,” Revista Española de Cardiología, vol. 59, pp. 418–420, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  83. J. C. Kaski and D. Fernández-Bergés, “Proteína C reactiva en el servicio de urgencias: ‘ha encontrado una aplicación clínica?” Revista Española de Cardiología, vol. 60, pp. 797–800, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  84. K. O. Pietila, A. P. Harmoinen, J. Jokiniitty, and A. I. Pasternack, “Serum C-reactive protein concentration in acute myocardial infarction and its relationship to mortality during 24 months of follow-up in patients under thrombolytic treatment,” European Heart Journal, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1345–1349, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  85. J. Gussekloo, M. C. L. Schaap, M. Frölich, G. J. Blauw, and R. G. J. Westendorp, “C-reactive protein is a strong but nonspecific risk factor of fatal stroke in elderly persons,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1047–1051, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  86. F. Schiele, N. Meneveau, M. F. Seronde et al., “C-reactive protein improves risk prediction in patients with acute coronary syndromes,” European Heart Journal, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 290–297, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. J. Atkinson A.J., W. A. Colburn, V. G. DeGruttola et al., “Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 89–95, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. J. van der Bom and M. J. Cramer, “C-reactive protein as a prognostic tool in cardiovascular practices: should CRP testing be ordered along with lipid profiles?” Netherlands Heart Journal, vol. 11, pp. 265–267, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  89. S. Ueda, U. Ikeda, K. Yamamoto et al., “C-reactive protein as a predictor of cardiac rupture after acute myocardial infarction,” American Heart Journal, vol. 131, no. 5, pp. 857–860, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. S. M. Boekholdt, C. E. Hack, M. S. Sandhu et al., “C-reactive protein levels and coronary artery disease incidence and mortality in apparently healthy men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study 1993–2003,” Atherosclerosis, vol. 187, no. 2, pp. 415–422, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. R. S. Vasan, L. M. Sullivan, R. Roubenoff et al., “Inflammatory markers and risk of heart failure in elderly subjects without prior myocardial infarction: the Framingham Heart Study,” Circulation, vol. 107, no. 11, pp. 1486–1491, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. P. M. Ridker, M. J. Stampfer, and N. Rifai, “Novel risk factors for systemic atherosclerosis: a comparison of C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, homocysteine, lipoprotein(a), and standard cholesterol screening as predictors of peripheral arterial disease,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 285, no. 19, pp. 2481–2485, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  93. P. M. Ridker, “C-Reactive protein: eighty years from discovery to emergence as a major risk marker for cardiovascular disease,” Clinical Chemistry, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 209–215, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. V. B. Kraus and J. M. Jordan, “Serum C-Reactive Protein (CRP), target for therapy or trouble?” Biomarker Insights, vol. 1, pp. 77–80, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  95. A. D. Hingorani, T. Shah, J. P. Casas, S. E. Humphries, and P. J. Talmud, “C-Reactive protein and coronary heart disease: predictive test or therapeutic target?” Clinical Chemistry, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 239–255, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. D. I. Buckley, R. Fu, M. Freeman, K. Rogers, and M. Helfand, “C-reactive protein as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analyses for the U.S. preventive services task force,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 151, no. 7, pp. 483–495, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  97. P. M. Ridker, N. Rifai, M. Clearfield et al., “Measurement of C-reactive protein for the targeting of statin therapy in the primary prevention of acute coronary events,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 344, no. 26, pp. 1959–1965, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. S. E. Nissen, E. M. Tuzcu, P. Schoenhagen et al., “Effect of intensive compared with moderate lipid-lowering therapy on progression of coronary atherosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 291, no. 9, pp. 1071–1080, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. P. M. Ridker, E. Danielson, F. A. Fonseca et al., “Reduction in C-reactive protein and LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular event rates after initiation of rosuvastatin: a prospective study of the JUPITER trial,” The Lancet, vol. 373, no. 9670, pp. 1175–1182, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. J. Oh, H. Teoh, and L. A. Leiter, “Should C-reactive protein be a target of therapy?” Diabetes Care, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. S155–S160, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. V. Bermúdez, E. Rojas, J. J. Salazar et al., “Coronary risk estimation according to the framingham-wilson score: epidemiologic behavior of innovative cardio metabolic risk factors in the maracaibo city,” International Journal of Cardiovascular Research, vol. 2, article 4, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  102. K. L. Ong, M. A. Allison, B. M. Cheung et al., “Trends in C-reactive protein levels in US adults From 1999 to 2010,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 177, pp. 1430–1442, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  103. V. Bermúdez, M. Cabrera, L. Mendoza et al., “High-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein epidemiological behavior in adult individuals from Maracaibo, Venezuela,” Revista Latinoamericana de Hipertension, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 22–29, 2013. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2014 Juan Salazar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

6686 Views | 2008 Downloads | 49 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
 Sign up for content alertsSign up