CRP is risk factor for heart disease

CRP (C-reactive protein) is a protein made by the liver which is known to be a ‘marker’ for a state of inflammation in the body. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the role CRP might play in heart disease. For instance, CRP is present in the atherosclerotic plaque that is the hallmark of heart disease. Raised CRP may indicate a state of inflammation in the coronary arteries that may set the scene for heart disease. So should doctors be measuring CRP as a risk factor, as they do cholesterol and blood pressure?

A report from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, led by doctors at the University of Cambridge, UK, suggests that we should, indeed, take CRP seriously as a risk factor in heart disease. In this meta analysis, they looked at CRP and other risk factors in 54 long-term prospective studies covering over 160,000 people. CRP was found to be associated with various known heart disease risk factors, like high cholesterol, and with other inflammatory markers. Higher CRP was linked to increased risk of heart disease, stroke, death from these conditions, and overall mortality.

These findings do not, however, prove that CRP actually causes heart disease or stroke, although other studies have suggested it may play a part in blood clotting or rupture of plaque in the arteries, triggering heart attack and stroke. It has also been argued that measuring CRP might help to pinpoint patients at high risk of heart disease more accurately. Some studies have shown, for example, that patients with high CRP may have more to gain from treatment with cholesterol-lowering statins. Further studies are now needed to clarify the role of CRP in heart disease and stroke. Drugs that target CRP are currently in development; it will be interesting to see if these will be a new approach to the prevention and treatment of heart disease and stroke.

Source:

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 January 9 2010;375:132-140