4.1 Article

Association of high sensitive C-reactive protein with coronary heart disease: a Mendelian randomization study

Journal

BMC MEDICAL GENETICS
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12881-019-0910-z

Keywords

Hs-CRP; CRP gene; CHD; Mendelian randomization analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81573232]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesWhether high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) has a causal effect on coronary heart disease (CHD) is unclear. This study investigated the causal effect of hs-CRP on CHD risk using Mendelian Randomization (MR) analysis.MethodsA total of 3802 subjects were recruited in the follow-up study. Linear regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between CRP polymorphisms and hs-CRP. Survival receiver operator characteristic curve method was used to explore the cut-off of hs-CRP on CHD incidence. Cox regression model was applied to detect the association of hs-CRP with CHD by calculating the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Rs1205 and rs876537 in CRP were selected as instrumental variables in MR analysis.ResultsDuring a median follow-up time of 5.01years, 98 CHD incidence was identified (47.03/10(4) person-years). Hs-CRP was significantly increased among rs1205 and rs876537 genotypes with r values of 0.064 and 0.066, respectively. Hs-CRP 1.08mg/L was identified as the cut-off value with a maximum value of sensitivity and specificity on prediction of CHD. Participants with >= 1.08mg/L of hs-CRP has a higher risk of CHD incidence than that of participants with <1.08mg/L, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.69 (1.11-2.60) with a P value of 0.016. No significant casual association was observed between hs-CRP and CHD with a P value of 0.777.ConclusionsThe association between hs-CRP and CHD is unlikely to be causal, hs-CRP might be a predictor for incidence of CHD in general population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available