Credits Earned (2024) Crédits obtenus

Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#1 CRP = CV?: Should We React to C-Reactive Protein?

Is high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) useful in guiding the management cardiovascular (CV) disease primary prevention?

hs-CRP is not useful at identifying patients at risk of a CV event or those who may benefit from primary prevention interventions.

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

JUPITER1 is used by some to justify hs-CRP testing to guide intervention for primary prevention of CV disease: 
  • Randomized controlled trial (RCT) (~90,000 screened17,802 includedwith LDL <3.4 mmol/L and hs-CRP ≥2 mg/L followed for median 1.9 years. 
    • CV events: Rosuvastatin 1.6% vs. placebo 2.8%, Number Needed to Treat (NNT)=82. 
    • All-cause mortality: Rosuvastatin 2.2% vs. placebo 2.8%, NNT=182. 
    • Several limitations:2 
      • Early study termination (which tends to exaggerate benefits3). 
      • Poor generalizability due to strict eligibility criteria. 
      • Sponsorship bias. 
      • Incomplete outcome reporting.
NRCT exists where patients are randomized to hs-CRP testing or no testing to guide therapy initiation     Context:  
  • Meta-analysis4 of 52 prospective studies (246,669 patients) found that adding hs-CRP to traditional CV risk factors (i.e. Framingham calculatordid not better identify those at risk of CV events. 
  • JUPITER added virtually nothing to statin management in primary prevention: 
    • Statins reduce CV events by relative ~25-30% across the population5 (regardless of hs-CRP6)and absolute benefit depends on patient’s individual CV risk.5 
    • Mean CRP in JUPITER would change risk obtained from Framingham calculator by only ~1-3%, which has little/no effect on treatment benefits and therefore should not influence decisions.7 
      • Example: Statin therapy reduces absolute risk by 4.5% (if baseline risk=18%) vs. 5.25% (if baseline risk=21%). 
  • hs-CRP varies widely from one measurement to the next,8,9 meaning single measurements are insufficient for decision-making. 
  • Reductions in hs-CRP are not consistently predictive of improved outcomes. 
    • Vitamin A, rosiglitazone and rofecoxib reduced hs-CRP, but worsen clinical outcomes.7 
  • Updated Canadian dyslipidemia guidelines no longer recommend routine use of hs-CRP to stratify patients, including those at “intermediate risk.10 
  Last Reviewed: July 13, 2016 by Ricky D Turgeon BSc(Pharm) ACPR PharmD 

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#363 Making a difference in indifference? Medications for apathy in dementia

In patients with dementia, how safe and effective are stimulants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics for treating apathy?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#362 Facing the Evidence in Acne, Part I: Oral contraceptives and spironolactone in females

How effective are combined oral contraceptives (COC) and spironolactone for treating acne of at least mild-moderate severity in females?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#361 Preventing RSV Infections in Infants

How safe and effective are monoclonal antibodies to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections in infants?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • G. Michael Allan MD CCFP

1. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:2195-207.

2. de Lorgeril M, Salen P, Abramson J, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1032-6.

3. Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, et al. JAMA. 2010; 303:1180-7.

4. The Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367:1310-20.

5. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaborators. Lancet. 2012; 380:581-90.

6. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2011; 377:469-76.

7. McCormack JP, Allan GM. PLoS Med. 2010; 7:e1000196.

8. Koenig W, Sund M, Frohlich M, et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 158:357-64.

9. Bogaty P, Brophy JM, Boyer L, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165:221-6.

10. Anderson TJ, Gregoire J, Hegele RA, et al. Can J Cardiol. 2013; 29:151-67.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.

Most recent review: 13/07/2016

By: Ricky D. Turgeon, B. Sc. (Pharm), ACPR, Pharm. D.; G. Michael Allan, M.D., CCMF

Comments: Evidence: No new evidence; Bottom line: no change.

Learning at a glance
Yearly credits
Acquired ()
Your content by topic
Cardiology Dermatology Emergency
My Bookmarks