A c-reactive protein test measures the level of c-reactive protein (CRP) in a sample of your blood. CRP is a protein that your liver makes. Normally, you have low levels of c-reactive protein in your blood. Your liver releases more CRP into your bloodstream if you have inflammation in your body. High levels of CRP may mean you have a serious health condition that causes inflammation.
A CRP test may be used to help find or monitor inflammation in acute or chronic conditions, including:
In other words it “may” or it may not show up when there is inflammation. It references all sorts of problems. The problem looked for in the study is the least of it.
Is this on or off-target? Vasculitis. I’d say it can be both on and off-target.
Doctors do not rely on CRP tests. Their worth is not applicable.
Do you think that the study noted matters when CRP results are applied? Because these are most of the reasons
A CRP test may be used to help find or monitor inflammation in acute or chronic conditions, including:
All very interesting, I’m sure, for someone who’s unaware (which would not me me, BTW) However, the study used hs (high sensitivity) CRP in its design so it’s not tremendously relevant.
Read the original link. Just the title, if necessary.
I am on a statin. As a T2D with no sugar problems, my chemistry has in some ways shifted. The genie is out of the bottle. I play it safe longer term.
The CRP crap makes no difference to anyone.
The individual conditions are or can be known often decades in advance. Not all doctors order tests or order treatments. Many doctors are poor. Many patients are poorer at understanding why to act around early 50s or earlier if there is any family history. Often both the doctor and patient puts off care.
thanks for the reference! The 20% figure might have come from this 1991 study, though I’m sure there’s probably more recent population based estimates. Prevalence of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] excess in coronary artery disease - ScienceDirect
I think there’s a good case for everyone getting this test given its low cost but definitely for those with a family history of heart disease (I grew up hearing about generations of heart attacks in my family, now I know why…)
@VitamanD …for sure, family history can be a dead giveaway, if you take notice of it. This is something I didn’t quite appreciate was so strong in my family…and I have no excuse. My mum developed severe peripheral artery disease in her early 60s …that is, by then it was bad enough that she finally went to the doctor. Difficult to control blood pressure (secondary to renal artery syenosis), 2 strokes and ultimately congestive heart failure were her lot. I…mistakenly…attributed it solely to smoking. Now I know why.
Since belatedly discovering my advanced coronary artery disease and making suggestions/observations based on my experience to folk who otherwise don’t take much notice of their cardiovascular health (not unlike dental health really), you would not believe the number of folk who’ve opined that there are worse ways to die (presumably meaning worse than a sudden, swift heart attack). True enough. Thing is, other manifestations of ASCVD are strong possibilities for that title … as my mother would certainly attest