Open Access Gold as soon as Publ. Version/Full Text is submitted to ZB.
Prognostic value, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein as a marker for major cardiac events in asymptomatic individuals: A health technology assessment report.
Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 26, 30-39 (2010)
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the predictive value, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)-screening in addition to traditional risk factor screening in apparently healthy persons as a means of preventing coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: The systematic review was performed according to internationally recognized methods. Seven studies on risk prediction, one clinical decision-analytic modeling study, and three decision-analytic cost-effectiveness studies were included. The adjusted relative risk of high hs-CRP-level ranged from 0.7 to 2.47 (p < .05 in four of seven studies). Adding hs-CRP to the prediction models increased the areas under the curve by 0.00 to 0.027. Based on the clinical decision analysis, both individuals with elevated hs-CRP-levels and those with hyperlipidemia have a similar gain in life expectancy following statin therapy. One high-quality economic modeling study suggests favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for persons with elevated hs-CRP and higher risk. However, many model parameters were based on limited evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Adding hs-CRP to traditional risk factors improves risk prediction, but the clinical relevance and cost-effectiveness of this improvement remain unclear.
Altmetric
Additional Metrics?
Edit extra informations
Login
Publication type
Article: Journal article
Document type
Scientific Article
Keywords
Coronary artery disease; Risk prediction; High-sensitivity C-reactive protein; Systematic review; Cost-effectiveness; Health technology assessment
ISSN (print) / ISBN
0266-4623
e-ISSN
1471-6348
Quellenangaben
Volume: 26,
Issue: 1,
Pages: 30-39
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Reviewing status
Peer reviewed