Current Atherosclerosis Reports

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 110–118 | Cite as

Role of C-Reactive Protein in Contributing to Increased Cardiovascular Risk in Metabolic Syndrome

  • Sridevi Devaraj
  • Simona Valleggi
  • David Siegel
  • Ishwarlal JialalEmail author
Open Access


Metabolic syndrome is associated with increased propensity for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Low-grade inflammation is characteristic of metabolic syndrome. C-reactive protein, the best characterized biomarker of inflammation, is also an independent predictor of future cardiovascular events. This review outlines the role of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in contributing to increased cardiovascular risk in metabolic syndrome by inducing endothelial cell dysfunction and activating monocytes.


CRP Metabolic syndrome Inflammation Cardiovascular risk 


Metabolic syndrome (MetS) comprises a cluster of abnormalities, with insulin resistance and adiposity as central features [1, 2, 3]. Five diagnostic criteria for MetS have been identified by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III), and the presence of any of these three features—central obesity, dyslipidemia (high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol), hypertension, and impaired fasting glucose—is considered sufficient to diagnose the syndrome [4]. About 24% of US adults have MetS, and the prevalence increases with age (44% at age 60 years) [5].

Metabolic Syndrome and Cardiovascular Disease

Individuals with MetS have an increased burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) [6, 7, 8]. In the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease study, Lakka et al. [6] convincingly showed that men with MetS, even in the absence of baseline coronary artery disease (CAD) or diabetes, had a significantly increased mortality from CAD. In the Botnia study, MetS was defined as the presence of at least two of the following risk factors: obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or microalbuminuria. Cardiovascular mortality was assessed in 3,606 individuals, with a median follow-up of 6.9 years. In women and men, respectively, MetS was seen in 10% and 15% of participants with normal glucose tolerance, 42% and 64% of those with impaired fasting glucose/impaired glucose tolerance, and 78% and 84% of those with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In individuals with MetS, the risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke was increased threefold (P < 0.001) and the risk for cardiovascular mortality was increased sixfold (12.0% vs 2.2%; P < 0.001) [6, 7, 8]. Using data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), Alexander et al. [7] reported that MetS is very common, with 44% of the US population over 50 years of age meeting the NCEP-ATP III criteria. Individuals with MetS without diabetes had higher CHD prevalence (13.9%), and those with both MetS and diabetes had the highest prevalence of CHD (19.2%) compared with those with neither. MetS was a significant univariate predictor of prevalent CHD. The Hoorn Study examined 615 men and 749 women aged 50 to 75 years without diabetes or a history of CVD at baseline and reported that the NCEP-ATP III definition of MetS was associated with about a twofold increase in age-adjusted risk of fatal CVD in men and nonfatal CVD in women [6, 7, 8]. The lower but significant risks were also obtained using the World Health Organization, American College of Endocrinology, and European Group on Insulin Resistance definitions of MetS. Ford [5,] using the modified NCEP-ATP III criteria on the NHANES cohort, also reported significantly increased prevalence of MetS in the US population.

Metabolic Syndrome and Diabetes

Besides the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, the components of MetS have been associated with diabetes. Hanson et al. [9] used factor analysis to identify the components of MetS on 1918 Native Americans of the Pima tribe. Insulin resistance factor was strongly associated with diabetes in a 4-year follow-up. Also, the body size and the lipid factor predicted diabetes whereas the blood pressure factor did not.

In the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS), MetS increased the risk for CHD events and diabetes [10]. MetS continued to predict CHD events in a multivariate model incorporating conventional risk factors. Participants with four or five features of the syndrome had a 3.7-fold increase in risk for CHD and a 24.5-fold increase in risk for diabetes compared with those with no features of the syndrome. The Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study [11] also reported a 2.3-fold increased incidence of CVD in participants with MetS, and these effects persisted after adjustment for conventional risk factors.

Overall, MetS confers an increased propensity to both diabetes and CVD. Although individual components of MetS independently contribute to increased cardiovascular risk, in concert they do not explain the increased propensity of vascular disease in individuals with MetS, and the precise mechanisms for this increased propensity remain to be elucidated. Inflammation is pivotal in all phases of atherosclerosis, from foam cell formation to culmination in acute coronary syndromes. It appears that low-grade chronic inflammation is a central feature of MetS and could contribute to increased risks of both CVD and diabetes in MetS.

Inflammation, High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein, and Increased Cardiovascular Risk

Evidence supporting the hypothesis that elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels contribute to increased cardiovascular risk is now available from at least six major prospective studies [12]. These are the Physician’s Health Study (PHS) [13], Women’s Healthy Study (WHS) [14], Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study [15], and Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS) [16] in the United States and the Monitoring Trends and Determinants on Cardiovascular Diseases/Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg (MONICA/KORA Augsburg) [17] and the Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility (AGES)-Reykjavik [18] studies in Europe. The largest of the American cohorts is the WHS, a prospective evaluation of 27,939 initially healthy American women who underwent high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) evaluation along with a full lipid panel and Framingham risk assessment and were monitored over a period of 8.3 years for the occurrence of first-ever cardiovascular events. Overall, baseline hsCRP levels in the WHS were a strong predictor of future vascular events; the relative risks for those with lowest to highest quintiles of hsCRP at baseline were 1.0, 1.8, 2.3, 3.2, and 4.5 (P < 0.001). After adjustment for age, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, and hormone replacement therapy, the risk in the top quintile of hsCRP was 2.3 (95% CI, 1.6–3.4). A combined approach, using both a lipid panel and hsCRP, provided improved prediction of cardiovascular event–free survival. Most importantly, hsCRP levels remained a highly significant predictor of risk in the WHS after adjustment for the Framingham Risk Score. Data on hsCRP from the PHS and WHS have been corroborated by similar analyses from other large cohorts from the United States and Europe. In a case-cohort analysis of 12,819 apparently healthy middle-aged men and women participating in the ARIC study over a 6-year follow-up period, the relative risks of incident CHD for those with baseline hsCRP levels less than 1.0, 1.0 to 3.0, and greater than 3.0 mg/L were 1.0, 1.6, and 2.5, respectively, after adjusting for age, gender, and ethnicity [15]. Almost identical data were derived from a prospective evaluation of 3435 German men participating in the MONICA/KORA Augsburg Cohort Study, in which 191 incident coronary events occurred during 6.6 years of follow-up [17]. In this study of men, as in the WHS study of women, hsCRP levels at baseline were independently associated with incident coronary events. These effects remained significant (P < 0.001) after adjustment for Framingham Risk Score. The Reykjavik Study included 2,459 incident events during an 18-year follow-up period [18]. Although this prospective study used an hsCRP cut-point for relative risk of 2.0 rather than 3.0, and thus would tend to underestimate effects compared with other cohorts, a highly significant fully adjusted odds ratio of 1.5 was observed. Within the AFCAPS/TexCAPS analysis of 5,742 apparently healthy individuals enrolled in a randomized primary prevention trial of lovastatin versus placebo, each quartile increase in baseline hsCRP was associated with a 21% increase in the risk of a first cardiovascular event (95% CI, 4–41%), an effect that again persisted after control for all individual components of the Framingham Risk Score [16]. Similarly, in an analysis of 1,666 individuals free of CVD enrolled in the Pravastatin Inflammation/CRP Evaluation (PRINCE) study, hsCRP levels correlated modestly with 10-year Framingham Risk Scores yet showed minimal relation to any individual component of the score itself.

Inflammation, High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein, and Increased Cardiovascular Risk in Metabolic Syndrome

Numerous studies have now confirmed that CRP levels are elevated in individuals with MetS [12]. Furthermore, it has been proposed that hsCRP be added as a clinical criterion for MetS and for creation of an hsCRP-modified CHD risk score [12].

With regard to MetS, Yudkin et al. [19], conducted Z-score analyses in a study 107 nondiabetic individuals and found a very significant correlation between inflammatory markers and several features of the MetS. CRP levels were shown to be strongly associated with insulin resistance calculated from the homeostatic model assessment, blood pressure, low HDL, and triglycerides, and also to levels of the proinflammatory cytokines interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF). Body mass index and insulin resistance were the strongest determinants of the inflammatory state. There is a linear relationship between the number of metabolic features and increasing levels of hsCRP. Furthermore, Festa et al. [20], in the Insulin Resistance and Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS), showed that hsCRP was positively correlated with body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, plasma glucose, and fasting insulin, and that it was inversely correlated with HDL cholesterol and the insulin sensitivity index. The strongest associations were observed between CRP levels, central adiposity, and insulin resistance. The largest study to date that examined the association between inflammation and MetS was NHANES III [21]. In a representative sample of the US population (8570 participants > 20 years of age), individuals with MetS, defined using NCEP-ATP III criteria, were more likely than those without the syndrome to have elevated levels of markers of inflammation such as CRP, fibrinogen, and leukocyte count.

Ridker et al. [12, 14] evaluated inter-relationships between CRP, MetS, and incident cardiovascular events among 14,719 apparently healthy women who were followed for an 8-year period for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death; 24% of the cohort had MetS at study entry. At baseline, median CRP levels for those with zero, one, two, three, four, or five characteristics of the metabolic syndrome were 0.68, 1.09, 1.93, 3.01, 3.88, and 5.75 mg/L, respectively (P for trend < 0.0001). Over the 8-year follow-up, cardiovascular event-free survival rates based on CRP levels above or below 3.0 mg/L were similar to survival rates based on having three or more characteristics of MetS. At all levels of severity of MetS, CRP added prognostic information on subsequent risk. Additive effects for CRP were also observed for those with four or five characteristics of MetS. Thus, in this study, those who had hsCRP levels of less than 3 mg/L without MetS had the best cardiovascular survival, whereas those who had hsCRP levels greater than 3 mg/L with MetS had the worst cardiovascular survival.

An almost identical additive interaction between hsCRP, MetS, and subsequent vascular risk was observed in WOSCOPS, a randomized intervention trial of pravastatin that monitored 6447 middle-aged men over a 5-year period. In WOSCOPS, hsCRP greater than 3 mg/L at baseline was highly predictive of incident vascular events after stratification by the presence or absence of MetS [22]. Specifically, the observed relative risks of future coronary events in the low-CRP/MetS-absent, high-CRP/MetS-absent, low-CRP/MetS-present, and high-CRP/MetS-present subgroups within WOSCOPS were 1.0 (referent), 1.6, 1.6, and 2.8, respectively (P < 0.05).

Smaller but consistent effects were observed in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Suzuki et al. [23] studied 4,017 men and women ≥ 65 years of age without baseline congestive heart failure (CHF) or diabetes participating in the Cardiovascular Health Study, an observational study with 12.2 years follow-up and 966 cases of incident CHF. Baseline CRP/MetS or IL-6/MetS were defined as presence of three of six components, with elevated CRP (≥3 mg/L) or IL-6 (≥2.21 pg/mL) as a sixth component added to NCEP-ATP III criteria. MetS and elevated inflammation markers were independently associated with CHF risk (hazard ratio = 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16–1.51] for MetS; 1.53 [95% CI, 1.34–1.75] for CRP; and 1.37 [95% CI, 1.19–1.55] for IL-6). There was a 20% relative excess risk attributed to the combination of MetS and CRP (95% CI, −44% to 88%). CRP/MetS and IL-6/MetS definitions reclassified 18% and 13%, respectively, of participants as having MetS. Both CRP/MetS and IL-6/MetS increased risk of CHF by 60% compared with those without MetS. In this study, MetS and inflammation markers provided additive information on CHF risk in this elderly cohort.

In a cross-sectional study of 3,873 individuals (weighted to 156 million) aged ≥ 18 years participating in the NHANES 1999–2000, participants were classified as having diabetes, MetS according to modified NCEP-ATP III criteria, or neither condition by low (<1 mg/L), intermediate (1–3 mg/L), or high (>3 mg/L) CRP levels. Malik et al. [24] reported that after adjusting for age, gender, smoking, and total cholesterol, compared with those with neither MetS nor diabetes and low CRP levels, the odd ratios of CVD were 1.99 (95% CI, 1.10–3.59) for those with no disease and high CRP levels and 2.67 (95% CI, 1.30–5.48) for those with MetS and intermediate CRP. Persons with MetS but high CRP had an OR of 3.33 (95% CI, 1.80–6.16), similar to those with diabetes and low CRP (3.21; 95% CI, 1.27–8.09). The likelihood of CVD was highest in those with diabetes who had intermediate CRP levels (6.01; 95% CI, 2.54–14.20) and in those with diabetes and high CRP (7.73; 95% CI, 3.99–14.95).

Pischon et al. [25] showed in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study that whereas MetS was a strong predictor of CHD in both men and women, CRP was additive in men only. It should be emphasized that in this study, a modified definition of MetS was used because waist circumference, blood pressure, and glucose were not available at baseline. In a smaller Japanese study by Takeno et al. [26] of 461 patients with acute myocardial infarction, CRP levels were additive to MetS in predicting future major adverse cardiac events. Furthermore, recent investigation relating increased CRP levels and MetS in 1,044 older (≥65 years) individuals has also led to the conclusion that MetS is associated with low-grade systemic inflammation and that the association is mainly supported by a strong independent correlation between waist circumference and high hsCRP levels [27]. Collectively, all these studies support the hypothesis that an increased CRP level in the setting of MetS confers an increased risk of future cardiovascular events.

Additionally, a genome-wide association study has been performed among 6,345 apparently healthy women in whom 336,108 single nucleotide proteins were evaluated as potential determinants of plasma CRP concentration [28]. Overall, seven loci that associate with plasma CRP at levels achieving genome-wide statistical significance were found. Two of these loci (GCKR and HNF1A) are suspected or known to be associated with maturity-onset diabetes of the young, one is a gene-desert region on 12q23.2, and the remaining four loci are in or near the leptin receptor protein gene, the apolipoprotein E gene, the IL-6 receptor protein gene, or the CRP gene itself. The protein products of six of these seven loci are directly involved in MetS, insulin resistance, β-cell function, weight homeostasis, and/or premature atherothrombosis. Thus, it was concluded that common variations in several genes involved in metabolic and inflammatory regulation have significant effects on CRP levels, consistent with the identification of CRP as a useful biomarker of risk for incident vascular disease and diabetes.

These findings have sparked increased discussion about the formal addition of hsCRP to the criteria of MetS. In addition to the prognostic information that hsCRP evaluation might add to the current definition of MetS, there are several other practical benefits of hsCRP measurement. First, hsCRP is strongly associated with components of MetS that are difficult to measure in routine clinical practice, such as impaired fibrinolysis and insulin resistance [19, 20]. Also, the widespread availability of commercial assays for hsCRP has made its measurement simple and inexpensive. In addition, as hsCRP does not display diurnal variation and demonstrates long-term stability comparable with cholesterol, it can be reliably evaluated with a single nonfasting measurement [29, 30]. The addition of hsCRP measurement to our present diagnosis of the MetS may significantly improve the early detection of risk for future diabetes and cardiovascular events in individuals [31]. Overall, it appears that in individuals with MetS, an elevated CRP confers a greater risk for cardiovascular events by activation of monocytes and induction of endothelial cell dysfunction [32].

C-Reactive Protein, Endothelial Dysfunction, and Metabolic Syndrome

Endothelial dysfunction (ED) is now recognized to play a critical role in the initiation and progression of atherosclerotic vascular disease [33, 34, 35]. Furthermore, endothelial function assessment by brachial flow-mediated dilatation is a surrogate marker of cardiovascular risk [36, 37] and has been shown to be decreased in MetS [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. It is well established that the individual components of Mets are related to ED. Previous studies have shown that obesity, low HDL cholesterol, impaired glucose tolerance, hypertriglyceridemia, and hypertension are associated with decreased endothelium-dependent vasodilatation [44, 45]. Insulin resistance is also associated with ED [46, 47].

An impressive amount of data now implicates CRP in inducing endothelial cell activation and dysfunction in vitro as well as in vivo [48, 49, 50, 51, 52]. Several observations demonstrated that CRP levels correlated inversely with endothelial vasoreactivity in vivo [53, 54].The most compelling data implicating CRP as a determinant of ED were studies demonstrating that human CRP reduced basal and stimulated nitric oxide release from arterial and venous endothelial cells [55, 56]. Our group has explored various mechanistic events involved in CRP-mediated endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) inhibition and documented that increased NADPH oxidase activation and GTPCH1 downregulation are associated with CRP-mediated eNOS uncoupling in human airway epithelial cells in vitro [57•]. In vivo studies have shown that CRP impairs endothelial vasoreactivity and decreases eNOS activity [48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54]. Guan et al. [58••] showed that a single intravenous injection of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector with hsCRP to male rats resulted in efficient and sustained expression of CRP in the liver and other tissues and an increase in serum CRP to 15 µg/mL at 2 and 4 months. This was associated with an increase in systolic and mean arterial blood pressure. The authors went on to show impaired endothelium-dependent vasoreactivity in the AAV-hsCRP rats versus the control rats administered AAV-green fluorescent protein. Previously, we have shown that CRP inhibits prostacyclin synthase, resulting in decreased prostacyclin, which is a potent vasodilator [50]. Thus, CRP, by inducing ED, could put individuals with MetS at further risk for hypertension and CVD.

Individuals with MetS are in a procoagulant state, as evidenced by increased circulating plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1). We have shown that CRP induces PAI-1 and decreases tissue plasminogen activator in endothelial cells [59, 60]. CRP appears to induce PAI-1 antigen and activity via upregulation of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) and Rho kinase activities [61].

Individuals with MetS have increased circulating levels of cell adhesion molecules (CAMs). In 943 70-old participants (50% women) of the Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors (PIVUS) study, Ingelsson et al. [62] reported that vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), E-selectin, and CRP demonstrated the strongest associations with MetS and insulin resistance. Also, in the Women’s Health Study, women with MetS had significantly higher CRP and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) levels that correlated significantly with increased vascular risk [63]. Furthermore, Kressel et al. [64] showed that individuals with MetS had significantly higher values of CRP, soluble ICAM, and soluble VCAM compared with those without MetS [64]. Rosso et al. [65] demonstrated increased VCAM in individuals with MetS, and this correlated significantly with the quantitative insulin-sensitivity check index (QUICKI). We have previously shown in shear stress and static conditions that CRP upregulates ICAM, VCAM, NF-κB, and monocyte-endothelial cell adhesion in a dose-dependent manner [66].

C-Reactive Protein, Monocyte-Macrophages, and Metabolic Syndrome

The proinflammatory effects of CRP that have been documented in monocyte-macrophages include induction of tissue factor, proinflammatory cytokines, reactive oxygen species, chemokine receptor CCR2, release of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP), CD11b expression, and oxidized LDL uptake as well as inhibition of cholesterol efflux and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced IL-10 release [67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74•]. Another important in vivo demonstration made recently is from our group on the induction of myeloperoxidase activity in macrophages by CRP administration [75].

Several lines of experimental evidence support the role of monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1) in atherogenesis, insulin resistance, and adipose tissue-mediated inflammation. Also, CRP has been reported to induce MCP-1 in endothelial cells [76] and its receptor CCR2 on monocytes [69]. Furthermore, Esposito et al. [77] have reported that in both obese and non-obese women, IL-10 levels were significantly lower in women with MetS. In this regard, we have reported that CRP inhibits LPS-induced IL-10 release from human monocyte-derived macrophages [78].

Recently, Bisoendial et al. [79] examined whole-blood expression for 95 inflammatory markers before and after infusion of 1.25 mg/kg of recombinant human CRP in five male volunteers using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis. Relevant transcript levels were measured at baseline and 4 and 8 h after recombinant human CRP infusion. CRP caused significant upregulation of MMP-9, MCP-1, plasminogen activator urokinase, macrophage inflammatory protein 1 α, and NF-κB mRNAs in peripheral leukocytes. mRNA upregulation of MMP-9 and MCP-1 was 17- and 11-fold, respectively. The corresponding increase in plasma protein levels of MMP-9 (78 ± 32 ng/mL to 109 ± 41 ng/mL; P = 0.014) and MCP-1 (312 ± 92 pg/mL to 2,590 ± 898 pg/mL; P = 0.007) closely mirrored mRNA findings. Thus, MetS individuals, who have persistently high CRP levels, may demonstrate increased leukocyte activation compared with those with low CRP levels, and this may contribute to increased cardiovascular risk in these individuals.

Oxidative stress, mainly superoxide, plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of MetS parameters [80]. Fortuño et al. [80] have reported increased mononuclear cell activation in MetS patients compared with control subjects. They also demonstrate increased superoxide, nitrotyrosine, and oxidized LDL in MetS patients compared with controls, although MetS patients studied in this report were on various medications, including statins (39%) and oral hyperglycemics (21%). Thus, there is an emergent need to study monocyte biology in drug-naïve MetS patients with low and high CRP levels, a subject that has not yet been explored. Furthermore, CRP has been shown by numerous investigators, including our group, to result in increased superoxide production as a result of enhanced NADPH oxidase activity in endothelial cells as well as in human peripheral blood monocytes [55, 57•, 68, 73, 81, 82]. Also, in situ hybridization revealed the presence of CRP mRNA that co-localized with p22phox, an essential component of NADPH oxidase [82]. We also demonstrated in Wistar rats that CRP stimulates superoxide production in macrophages via upregulation of NADPH oxidase [68].

Increased oxidized LDL in the vessel wall and circulation has been shown in patients with acute coronary syndrome and is associated with ED and predicted cardiovascular events [83]. Furthermore, patients with MetS exhibit increased plasma oxidized LDL levels [84]. In addition, we recently showed that CRP promotes oxidized LDL uptake and cholesterol ester accumulation in Wistar rats [74•].

Patients with MetS are in a procoagulant state. Tissue factor is increased in morbidly obese persons with abnormal glucose tolerance compared with those with normal glucose tolerance [85]. Diamant et al. [85] also demonstrated increased tissue factor—containing microparticles in type 2 diabetes mellitus that correlated significantly with features of MetS in this population. In vivo, several lines of evidence indicate that CRP promotes procoagulant activity [41]. We have shown that CRP promotes tissue factor activity in vitro and in vivo in the rat model and shown that it occurs via activation of reactive oxygen species and NF-κB [68].

MMPs and their tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase (TIMP) may play a role in cardiovascular complications associated with MetS. Studies have shown increased levels of pro-MMP-9, MMP-8, and TIMP-1 in MetS patients compared with controls [86]. Furthermore, we have confirmed in vitro and in vivo that CRP augments MMP-9 release and activity when injected into Wistar rats [74].

NF-κB is a pivotal transcription factor involved in the induction of specific proinflammatory genes [87]. Studies in animal models have demonstrated the importance of IKKβ in the pathogenesis of insulin resistance in obese and diabetic rodents. Recently, it has also been shown in humans that obesity is associated with an increase in NF-κB binding in the nucleus and a decrease in the inhibitory κb in the mononuclear cells, with increased mRNA for TNF [88], IL-6, macrophage inhibitory factor, and MMP-9, consistent with the proinflammatory state. Recently, we have shown that CRP induces NF-κB activity in rat macrophages in vivo [68, 74•]. Also, we have previously shown that in MetS patients, simvastatin therapy decreased hsCRP levels and mononuclear NF-κB activity [89].


Emerging laboratory and clinical evidence has shown a strong relationship between CRP and various features of MetS. The addition of CRP to the present definition of the MetS may help identify patients at high risk for future diabetes and CVD. Further investigation is clearly needed not only to clarify the molecular role of CRP in the pathogenesis of MetS, but also to shed new light on the role of CRP, specifically in mediating vascular effects and conferring increased risk of cardiovascular events in MetS patients with high CRP levels. In this regard, it should be emphasized that the Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) [90••] study showed a clear benefit of statin therapy in patients with CRP greater than 2 mg/L, and the published evidence base supports a role for statin therapy in MetS [91].



Grant Support from NIH K24 AT 00596, NIH HL 074360


No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Reaven GM: The insulin resistance syndrome: definition and dietary approaches to treatment. Annu Rev Nutr 2005, 25:391–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ: The metabolic syndrome. Lancet 2005, 365:1415–1428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haffner S, Cassells HB: Metabolic syndrome—a new risk factor of coronary heart disease? Diabetes Obes Metab 2003, 5:359–370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults: Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III. JAMA 2001, 285:2486–2497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ford ES: Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome defined by the International Diabetes Federation among adults in the U.S. Diabetes Care 2005, 28:2745–2749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lakka HM, Laaksonen DE, Lakka TA, et al.: The metabolic syndrome and total and cardiovascular disease mortality in middle-aged men. JAMA 2002, 288:2709–2716.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alexander CM, Landsman PB, Teutsch SM, Haffner SM: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III); National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). NCEP-defined metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and prevalence of coronary heart disease among NHANES III participants age 50 years and older. Diabetes 2003, 52:1210–1214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Devaraj S, Rosenson RS, Jialal I: Metabolic syndrome: an appraisal of the pro-inflammatory and procoagulant status. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2004, 33:431–453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanson RL, Imperatore G, Bennett PH, Knowler WC: Components of the “metabolic syndrome” and incidence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2002, 51:3120–3127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman D, Norrie J, Sattar N, et al.: Pravastatin and the development of diabetes mellitus: evidence for a protective treatment effect in the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study. Circulation 2001, 103:357–362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Assmann G, Nofer JR, Schulte H: Cardiovascular risk assessment in metabolic syndrome: view from PROCAM. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2004, 33:377–392.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ridker PM, Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Rifai N: C-reactive protein and other markers of inflammation in the prediction of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:836–843.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ridker PM, Glynn RJ, Hennekens CH: C-reactive protein adds to the predictive value of total and HDL cholesterol in determining risk of first myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998, 97:2007–2011.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ridker PM, Buring JE, Cook NR, Rifai N: C-reactive protein, the metabolic syndrome, and risk of incident cardiovascular events: an 8-year follow-up of 14,719 initially healthy American women. Circulation 2003,107:391–397.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ballantyne CM, Hoogeveen RC, Bang H, et al.: Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and risk for incident ischemic stroke in middle-aged men and women in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Arch Intern Med 2005, 165:2479–2484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S, et al.: Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study. JAMA 1998, 279:1615–1622.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koenig W, Khuseyinova N, Baumert J, Meisinger C: Prospective study of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein as a determinant of mortality: results from the MONICA/KORA Augsburg Cohort Study, 1984–1998. Clin Chem 2008, 54:335–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eiriksdottir G, Aspelund T, Bjarnadottir K, et al.: Apolipoprotein E genotype and statins affect CRP levels through independent and different mechanisms: AGES-Reykjavik Study. Atherosclerosis 2006, 186:222–224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yudkin JS, Juhan-Vague I, Hawe E, et al.; The HIFMECH Study Group: Low-grade inflammation may play a role in the etiology of the metabolic syndrome in patients with coronary heart disease: the HIFMECH study. Metabolism 2004, 53:852–857.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Festa A, D’Agostino R Jr, Howard G, et al.: Chronic subclinical inflammation as part of the insulin resistance syndrome: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS). Circulation 2000, 102:42–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ford ES: The metabolic syndrome and C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and leukocyte count: findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Atherosclerosis. 2003, 168:351–358.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sattar N, Gaw A, Scherbakova O, et al.: Metabolic syndrome with and without C-reactive protein as a predictor of coronary heart disease and diabetes in the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study. Circulation 2003, 108:414–419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suzuki T, Katz R, Jenny NS, et al.: Metabolic syndrome, inflammation, and incident heart failure in the elderly: the Cardiovascular Health Study. Circ Heart Fail 2008, 1:242–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malik S, Wong ND, Franklin SS, et al.: Impact of the metabolic syndrome on mortality from coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and all causes in United States adults. Circulation 2004, 110:1245–1250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pischon T, Hu FB, Rexrode KM, et al.: Inflammation, the metabolic syndrome, and risk of coronary heart disease in women and men. Atherosclerosis 2008, 197:392–399.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Takeno M, Yasuda S, Otsuka Y, et al.: Impact of metabolic syndrome on the long-term survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction: potential association with C-reactive protein. Circ J 2008, 72:415–419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zuliani G, Volpato S, Galvani M, et al.: Elevated C-reactive protein levels and metabolic syndrome in the elderly: the role of central obesity data from the InChianti study. Atherosclerosis 2009, 203:626–632.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ridker PM, Pare G, Parker A, et al.: Loci related to metabolic-syndrome pathways including LEPR, HNF1A, IL6R, and GCKR associate with plasma C-reactive protein: the Women’s Genome Health Study. Am J Hum Genet 2008, 82:1185–1192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meier-Ewert HK, Ridker PM, Rifai N, et al.: Absence of diurnal variation of C-reactive protein concentrations in healthy human subjects. Clin Chem 2001, 47:426–430.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ockene IS, Matthews CE, Rifai N, et al.: Variability and classification accuracy of serial high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurements in healthy adults. Clin Chem 2001, 47:444–450.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ridker PM, Wilson PW, Grundy SM: Should C-reactive protein be added to metabolic syndrome and to assessment of global cardiovascular risk? Circulation 2004, 109:2818–2825.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Devaraj S, Singh U, Jialal I: Human C-reactive protein and the metabolic syndrome. Curr Opin Lipidol 2009, 20:182–189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Al-Qaisi M, Kharbanda RK, Mittal TK, et al.: Measurement of endothelial function and its clinical utility for cardiovascular risk. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2008, 4:647–652.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lamon BD, Hajjar DP: Inflammation at the molecular interface of atherogenesis: an anthropological journey. Am J Pathol 2008, 173:1253–1264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bakker W, Eringa EC, Sipkema P, et al.: Endothelial dysfunction and diabetes: roles of hyperglycemia, impaired insulin signaling and obesity. Cell Tissue Res 2009, 335:165–189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Corretti MC, Anderson TJ, Benjamin EJ, et al.; International Brachial Artery Reactivity Task Force: Guidelines for the ultrasound assessment of endothelial-dependent flow-mediated vasodilation of the brachial artery: a report of the International Brachial Artery Reactivity Task Force. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002, 39:257–265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vita JA, Keaney JF Jr: Endothelial function: a barometer for cardiovascular risk? Circulation 2002,106:640–642.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Caballero AE: Endothelial dysfunction in obesity and insulin resistance: a road to diabetes and heart disease. Obes Res 2003, 11:1278–1289.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shankar SS, Steinberg HO: Obesity and endothelial dysfunction. Semin Vasc Med 2005, 5:56–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hsueh WA, Quinones MJ: Role of endothelial dysfunction in insulin resistance. Am J Cardiol 2003, 92:10J–17J.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Suzuki T, Hirata K, Elkind MS, et al.: Metabolic syndrome, endothelial dysfunction, and risk of cardiovascular events: the Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAs). Am Heart J 2008, 156:405–410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hamburg NM, Larson MG, Vita JA, et al.: Metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and brachial artery vasodilator function in Framingham Offspring participants without clinical evidence of cardiovascular disease. Am J Cardiol 2008, 101:82–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Melikian N, Chowienczyk P, MacCarthy PA, et al.: Determinants of endothelial function in asymptomatic subjects with and without the metabolic syndrome. Atherosclerosis 2008, 197:375–382.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rodriguez CJ, Miyake Y, Grahame-Clarke C, et al.: Relation of plasma glucose and endothelial function in a population-based multiethnic sample of subjects without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2005, 96:1273–1277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brook RD, Bard RL, Rubenfire M, et al.: Usefulness of visceral obesity (waist/hip ratio) in predicting vascular endothelial function in healthy overweight adults. Am J Cardiol 2001, 88:1264–1269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wheatcroft SB, Shah AM, Li JM, et al.: Preserved glucoregulation but attenuation of the vascular actions of insulin in mice heterozygous for knockout of the insulin receptor. Diabetes 2004, 53:2645–2652.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Steinberg HO, Chaker H, Leaming R, et al.: Obesity/insulin resistance is associated with endothelial dysfunction. Implications for the syndrome of insulin resistance. J Clin Invest 1996, 97:2601–2610.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Teoh H, Quan A, Lovren F, et al.: Impaired endothelial function in C-reactive protein overexpressing mice. Atherosclerosis 2008, 201:318–325.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Grad E, Golomb M, Mor-Yosef I, et al.: Transgenic expression of human C-reactive protein suppresses endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression and bioactivity after vascular injury. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2007, 293:H489–H495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Venugopal SK, Devaraj S, Jialal I: C-reactive protein decreases prostacyclin release from human aortic endothelial cells. Circulation 2003, 108:1676–1678.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schwartz R, Osborne-Lawrence S, Hahner L, et al.: C-reactive protein downregulates endothelial NO synthase and attenuates reendothelialization in vivo in mice. Circ Res 2007, 100:1452–1459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fichtlscherer S, Breuer S, Schächinger V, et al.: C-reactive protein levels determine systemic nitric oxide bioavailability in patients with coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2004, 25:1412–1428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fichtlscherer S, Rosenberger G, Walter DH, et al.: Elevated C-reactive protein levels and impaired endothelial vasoreactivity in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2000,102:1000–1006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cleland SJ, Sattar N, Petrie JR, et al.: Endothelial dysfunction as a possible link between C-reactive protein levels and cardiovascular disease. Clin Sci 2000, 98:531–535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Venugopal SK, Devaraj S, Yuhanna I, et al.: Demonstration that C-reactive protein decreases eNOS expression and bioactivity in human aortic endothelial cells. Circulation 2002, 106:1439–1441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Verma S, Wang CH, Li SH, et al.: A self-fulfilling prophecy: C-reactive protein attenuates nitric oxide production and inhibits angiogenesis. Circulation 2002, 106:913–919.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    • Singh U, Devaraj S, Vasquez-Vivar J, Jialal I: C-reactive protein decreases endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity via uncoupling. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2007, 43:780–791. This study describes mechanisms by which CRP increases oxidative stress, resulting in uncoupling of eNOS and reduced eNOS bioactivity, possibly explaining its role in causing ED.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    •• Guan H, Wang P, Rutai H, et al.: Adeno-associated virus-mediated human C-reactive protein gene delivery causes endothelial dysfunction and hypertension in rats. Clin Chem 2009, 55:274–284. This study is an in vivo demonstration that administration of CRP results in ED and hypertension.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Devaraj S, Xu DY, Jialal I: C-reactive protein increases plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 expression and activity in human aortic endothelial cells: implications for the metabolic syndrome and atherothrombosis. Circulation 2003,107:398–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Singh U, Devaraj S, Jialal I: C-reactive protein decreases tissue plasminogen activator activity in human aortic endothelial cells: evidence that C-reactive protein is a procoagulant. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005, 25:2216–2221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nakakuki T, Ito M, Iwasaki H, et al.: Rho/Rho-kinase pathway contributes to C-reactive protein-induced plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 expression in endothelial cells. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2005, 25:2088–2093.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ingelsson E, Hulthe J, Lind L: Inflammatory markers in relation to insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome. Eur J Clin Invest 2008, 38:502–509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Conen D, Rexrode KM, Creager MA, et al.: Metabolic syndrome, inflammation and risk of symptomatic PAD in women. Circulation 2009, 120:1041–1047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kressel G, Trunz B, Bub A, et al.: Systematic and vascular markers of inflammation in relation to metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance in adults with elevated atherosclerosis risk. Atherosclerosis 2009, 202:263–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rosso LG, Benitez MB, Fornari MC, et al.: Alterations in cell adhesion molecules and other biomarkers of cardiovascular disease in patients with MetS. Atherosclerosis 2008, 199:415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Devaraj S, Davis B, Simon SI, Jialal I: CRP promotes monocyte-endothelial cell adhesion via Fcgamma receptors in human aortic endothelial cells under static and shear flow conditions. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2006, 291:H1170–H1176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cermak J, Key NS, Bach RR, et al.: C-reactive protein induces human peripheral blood monocytes to synthesize tissue factor. Blood 1993, 82:513–520.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Devaraj S, Dasu MR, Singh U, et al.: C-reactive protein stimulates superoxide anion release and tissue factor activity in vivo. Atherosclerosis 2009, 203:67–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Han KH, Hong KH, Park JH, et al.: C-reactive protein promotes monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 mediated chemotaxis through upregulating CC chemokine receptor 2 expression in human monocytes. Circulation 2004, 109:2566–2571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Williams TN, Zhang CX, Game BA, et al.: C-reactive protein stimulates MMP-1 expression in U937 histiocytes through Fc[gamma]RII and extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway: an implication of CRP involvement in plaque destabilization. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2004, 24:61–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Woollard KJ, Fisch C, Newby R, et al.: C-reactive protein mediates CD11b expression in monocytes through the non-receptor tyrosine kinase, Syk, and calcium mobilization but not through cytosolic peroxides. Inflamm Res 2005, 54:485–492.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Chang MK, Binder CJ, Torzewski M, et al.: C-reactive protein binds to both oxidized LDL and apoptotic cells through recognition of a common ligand: phosphorylcholine of oxidized phospholipids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002, 99:13043–13048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wang X, Liao D, Bharadwaj U, et al.: C-reactive protein inhibits cholesterol efflux from human macrophage-derived foam cells. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2008, 28:519–526.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    • Singh U, Dasu MR, Yancey PG, et al.: Human C-reactive protein promotes oxidized low density lipoprotein uptake and matrix metalloproteinase-9 release in Wistar rats. J Lipid Res 2008, 49:1015–1023. In this study, the authors demonstrate in vivo that CRP induces oxidative stress and promotes cholesterol ester accumulation and foam cell formation.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Singh U, Devaraj S, Jialal I: C-Reactive protein stimulates myeloperoxidase release from polymorphonuclear cells and monocytes. Clin Chem 2009, 55:361–364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Han KH, Hong KH, Park JH, et al.: C-reactive protein promotes monocyte chemoattractant protein-1—mediated chemotaxis through upregulating CC chemokine receptor 2 expression in human monocytes. Circulation 2004,109:2566–2571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Esposito K, Pontillo A, Giugliano F, et al.: Association of low interleukin-10 levels with the metabolic syndrome in obese women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003, 88:1055–1058.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Singh U, Devaraj S, Dasu MR, et al.: C-reactive protein decreases interleukin-10 secretion in activated human monocyte-derived macrophages via inhibition of cyclic AMP production. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2006, 26:2469–2475.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bisoendial RJ, Birjmohun RS, Akdim F, et al.: C-reactive protein elicits white blood cell activation in humans. Am J Med 2009, 122:582.e1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Fortuño A, San José G, Moreno MU, et al.: Phagocytic NADPH oxidase overactivity underlies oxidative stress in metabolic syndrome. Diabetes 2006, 55:209–215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Keaney JF Jr, Larson MG, Vasan RS, et al.: Obesity and systemic oxidative stress: clinical correlates of oxidative stress in the Framingham Study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2003, 23:434–439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kobayashi S, Inoue N, Ohashi Y, et al.: Interaction of oxidative stress and inflammatory response in coronary plaque instability: important role of CRP. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2003, 23:1398–1404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ehara S, Ueda M, Naruko T: Elevated levels of oxidized low-density lipoprotein show a positive relationship with the severity of acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2001, 103:1955–1960.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Holvoet P, Kritchevsky SB, Tracy RP, et al.: The metabolic syndrome, circulating oxidized LDL, and risk of myocardial infarction in well-functioning elderly people in the health, aging, and body composition cohort. Diabetes 2004, 53:1068–1073.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Diamant M, Nieuwland R, Pablo RF, et al.: Elevated numbers of tissue-factor exposing microparticles correlate with components of the metabolic syndrome in uncomplicated type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation 2002, 106:2442–2447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Goncalves FM, Jacob-Ferreira AL, Gomes VA, et al.: Increased circulating levels of MMP-8, MMP-9 and pro-inflammatory markers in patients with metabolic syndrome. Clin Chim Acta 2009, 403:173–177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Barnes PJ, Karin M: Nuclear factor-kappaB: a pivotal transcription factor in chronic inflammatory diseases. N Engl J Med 1997, 336:1066–1071.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ghanim H, Aljada A, Hofmeyer D, et al.: Circulating mononuclear cells in the obese are in a proinflammatory state. Circulation 2004, 110:1564–1571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Devaraj S, Chan E, Jialal I: Direct demonstration of an anti-inflammatory effect of simvastatin in subjects with the metabolic syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006, 91:4489–4496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    •• Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca F, et al.: Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated c-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:2195–2207. This primary prevention trial with rosuvastatin showed a significant 37% reduction in cardiovascular events. Although rosuvastatin reduced LDL cholesterol by 50%, the reduction in cardiovascular events in JUPITER was almost twice that predicted based on LDL cholesterol reduction, and CRP levels were significantly reduced by 37%. Most importantly, in those with no risk factors except a high CRP, there was an equivalent benefit, supporting the hypothesis that CRP may mediate atherothrombosis.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Jialal I, Devaraj S: Statin therapy for the metabolic syndrome. The evidence base. Met Syndr Relat Disord 2009, 7:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sridevi Devaraj
    • 1
    • 2
  • Simona Valleggi
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Siegel
    • 2
  • Ishwarlal Jialal
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratory for Atherosclerosis and Metabolic ResearchUniversity of California Davis Medical CenterSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Veterans Affairs Medical CenterMatherUSA

Personalised recommendations