Measurement of faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin in inflammatory bowel disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lamb CA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3724198 | biostudies-other | 2011 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:We investigated, for the first time, levels of compliance with faecal calprotectin test in inflammatory bowel disease patients.All consecutive adult inflammatory bowel disease patients having been prescribed an faecal calprotectin test between December 2014-July 2015 were included. At their next visit to the hospital, patients had to return a stool sample for the faecal calprotectin test and answer a simple questionnaire: 'Have you brought a stool sample? If not, why not? If so, did you encounter any difficulties when collecting the sample? Were you aware of faecal calprotectin before being asked to take the test?'.One hundred and one patients were included (50 men; 77 patients with Crohn's disease). The range age was 40 years (19-68). Eighty-nine patients were being treated with infliximab, 10 were on vedolizumab, and two were not being treated with a biologic. Thirty-seven patients (35%) had performed the faecal calprotectin test. Eighty-one patients (80%) had not been aware of faecal calprotectin before being asked to take the test. Of the 64 patients who did not take the test, the prime reasons for non-compliance were forgetfulness (n = 49, 76.6%), a lack of perceived benefit for the test (n = 7, 11%), constipation (n = 5, 7.8%), refusal to handle faeces (n = 2, 3.1%), and difficulty collecting the stool sample (n = 1, 1.5%).Only one-third of the patients performed the faecal calprotectin test. The main reason for non-compliance was forgetfulness. Our present results emphasise the need for better patient education on the importance of complying with faecal calprotectin testing and the future of faecal calprotectin testing at home.
| S-EPMC5548356 | biostudies-other
Project description:The term IBD is usually used for referring to a group of inflammatory gastro-intestinal diseases (mainly Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). Accordingly, IBD arises as a result of inappropriate immune response to intestinal commensal organisms among genetically susceptible individuals. Performing colonoscopy and histopathologic evaluation on an inflamed bowel biopsy specimen are currently considered as gold standards for diagnosis and management of IBD.Correspondingly, these techniques are known to be invasive and costly. In recent decades, fecal calprotectin, as a biomarker, has received much attention for the diagnosis and non-invasive management of IBD.Up to now, many studies have investigated the efficacy of fecal calprotectin in the areas of IBD differentiation from IBS, prediction of endoscopic and histologic activities of IBD and prediction of disease recurrence. Although some of these studies have reported promising results, some others have shown significant limitations. Therefore, in this paper, we reviewed the most interesting ones of these studies after a brief discussion of the laboratory measurement of fecal calprotectin. Moreover, we attempted to provide an answer for the question of whether fecal-calprotectin could be considered as a potential surrogate marker for colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC7431395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Faecal calprotectin (FC), a cytosolic protein released by neutrophils (S100 family) in response to inflammation, is a simple, non-invasive test that can be used to differentiate irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), where there can be considerable symptom overlap.The aims of the study were (1) to be able to predict the ability of FC to exclude IBD and determine cut-offs when in remission, (2) to investigate the effects of time and temperature on stability of FC and (3) compare three ELISA kits to measure FC: Buhlmann, PhiCal v1 and PhiCal v2. A total of 311 patients with altered bowel habit were tested for FC; 144 with IBS, 148 with IBD and 19 with other organic causes.Sensitivity and specificity of FC (with PhiCal v2 kit) to distinguish between functional disorder (IBS) and IBD using cut-off 50 μg/g were 88% and 78%, respectively, with a negative predictive value of 87%. Area under the receiver operating curve was 0.84 (CI 0.78 to 0.90). For those with IBD, FC values below 250 μg/g corresponded with remission of disease with a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 76%, respectively. Area under the receiver operating curve was 0.93 (CI 0.89 to 0.97). FC was stable once extracted and frozen for up to 2.5 months. Pearson correlation was good between Buhlmann assay and PhiCal v2 (r2 = 0.95).FC has up to 87% negative predictive value to exclude IBD, and cut-offs less than 250 μg/g had 90% sensitivity to determine remission in IBD. Once frozen, FC is stable and the ELISA monoclonal plates were broadly comparable.
| S-EPMC4283700 | biostudies-other
Project description:To determine the best faecal calprotectin (FCP) cut-off level for differentiating between irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and organic disease, particularly inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in patients presenting with chronic diarrhoea.Retrospective analysis of patients who had colonoscopy, histology and FCP completed within 2 months.District general hospital.Consecutive new patients with chronic diarrhoea lasting longer than 4 weeks.Patients were seen by a single experienced gastroenterologist and listed for colonoscopy with histology. Laboratory investigations included a single faecal specimen for calprotectin assay (lower limit of detection: 8 µg/g), the results used for information only.Six FCP cut-off levels (range 8-150 µg/g) were compared against the 'gold standard' of histology: inflammation 'present' or 'absent'.Of 119 patients studied, 98 had normal colonoscopy and histology. The sensitivity of FCP to detect IBD at cut-off levels 8, 25 and 50 µg/g was 100% (with corresponding specificity 51%, 51%, 60%). In contrast, the lowest FCP cut-off, 8 µg/g, had 100% sensitivity to detect colonic inflammation, irrespective of cause (with negative predictive value (NPV) 100%). Importantly, 50/119 patients (42%) with FCP <8 µg/g had normal colonoscopy and histology.Our results suggest that using FCP to screen patients newly referred for chronic diarrhoea could exclude all without IBD and, at a lower cut-off, all without colonic inflammation, thus avoiding the need for colonoscopy. Such a major reduction has implications for resource allocation.
| S-EPMC5369552 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveInflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, autoimmune, gastrointestinal disorder. Canada has one of the highest prevalence and incidence rates of IBD in the world. Diagnosis is challenging due to the similarity of symptoms to functional gastrointestinal disorders. Faecalcalprotectin (FC) is a biomarker for active mucosal inflammation and has proven effective in the diagnosis of IBD. Our study objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding an FC test compared with standard practice (blood test) in primary care among adult patients presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms.DesignWe constructed a decision analytic tree with a 1-year time horizon. The cut-off level of 100?µg/g was used for FC testing. Probabilistic analyses were conducted for the base case and all scenarios.SettingCanadian health sector perspective.PopulationA hypothetical cohort of adult patients presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms in the primary care setting.InterventionsFC test compared with blood test.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of FC test expressed as cost per QALY gained compared with blood test and time to IBD diagnosis.ResultsFC testing is expected to cost more ($C295.1 vs $C273.9) than standard practice but yield little higher QALY (0.751vs0.750). The ICER of FC test was $C20?323 per QALY. Probabilistic analysis demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $C50?000 per QALY, there was 81.3% probability of FC test being cost-effective. The use of FC test in primary care reduced the time to IBD diagnosis by 40.0 days (95% CI 16.3 to 65.3 days), compared with blood testing alone.ConclusionsBased on this analysis of short-term outcomes, screening adult patients in primary care using FC test at a cut-off level of 100?µg/g is expected to be cost-effective in Canada.
| S-EPMC6500206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Achieving mucosal healing in patients with inflammatory bowel disease is related to a higher incidence of sustained clinical remission and it translates to lower rates of hospitalisation and surgery. The assessment methods of disease activity and response to therapy are limited and mainly rely on colonoscopy. This meta-analysis reviews the effectiveness of using faecal calprotectin as a marker for mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease. Two meta-analyses were conducted in parallel. The analysis on the use of faecal calprotectin in monitoring mucosal healing in colonic Crohn's disease is based on 16 publications (17 studies). The data set for diagnostic values of faecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis is composed of 35 original publications (total 49 studies). The DOR for the use of faecal calprotectin in Crohn's disease is estimated to be 11.20 and the area under the sROCis 0.829. In cases of ulcerative colitis, the DOR is 14.48, while the AUC sROC is 0.858. Heterogeneity of the studies was moderatetosubstantial. Collected data show overall good sensitivity and specificity of the faecal calprotectin test, as well as a good DOR. Thus, monitoring of mucosal healing with a non-invasive faecal calprotectin test may represent an attractive option for physicians and patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
| S-EPMC8161009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Test accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in primary care is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the test accuracy of FC testing in primary care and compare it to secondary care estimates for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS:Systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy using a bivariate random effects model. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until 31 May 2017 and included studies from auto alerts up until 31 January 2018. Eligible studies measured FC levels in stool samples to detect IBD in adult patients with chronic (at least 6-8 weeks) abdominal symptoms in primary or secondary care. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. We followed the protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD 42012003287. RESULTS:38 out of 2168 studies were eligible including five from primary care. Comparison of test accuracy by setting was precluded by extensive heterogeneity. Overall, summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were not recorded. At a threshold of 50 µg/g, sensitivity from separate meta-analysis of four assay types ranged from 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.92) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.94). Across three different definitions of disease, sensitivity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) to 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) to 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). Sensitivity appears to be lower in primary care and is further reduced at a revised threshold of 100 µg/g. CONCLUSIONS:Conclusive estimates of sensitivity and specificity of FC testing in primary care for the detection of IBD are still missing. There is insufficient evidence in the published literature to support the decision to introduce FC testing in primary care. Studies evaluating FC testing in an appropriate primary care setting are needed.
| S-EPMC6429840 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveIn primary care, assessing which patients with bowel symptoms harbour significant disease (cancer, higher-risk adenoma or IBD) is difficult. We studied the diagnostic accuracies of faecal haemoglobin (FHb) and faecal calprotectin (FC) in a cohort of symptomatic patients.DesignFrom October 2013 to March 2014, general practitioners were prompted to request FHb and FC when referring patients with bowel symptoms to secondary care. Faecal samples were analysed for haemoglobin (EIKEN OC-Sensor io) and calprotectin (BÜHLMANN Calprotectin ELISA). Patients triaged to endoscopy were investigated within 6?weeks. All clinicians and endoscopists were blind to the faecal test results. The diagnostic accuracies of FHb and FC for identification of significant bowel disease were assessed.Results1043 patients returned samples. FHb was detectable in 57.6% (median 0.4?µg/g, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.8; range 0-200). FC at 50?µg/g or above was present in 60.0%. 755 patients (54.6% women, median age 64?years (range 16-90, IQR 52-73)) returned samples and completed colonic investigations. 103 patients had significant bowel disease; the negative predictive values of FHb for colorectal cancer, higher-risk adenoma and IBD were 100%, 97.8% and 98.4%, respectively. Using cut-offs of detectable FHb and/or 200?µg/g FC detected two further cases of IBD, one higher-risk adenoma and no additional cancers.ConclusionsIn primary care, undetectable FHb is a good 'rule-out' test for significant bowel disease and could guide who requires investigation.
| S-EPMC5036251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the test accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the primary care setting using routine electronic health records.DesignRetrospective cohort test accuracy study.SettingUK primary care.Participants5970 patients (≥18 years) without a previous IBD diagnosis and with a first FC test between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2016. We excluded multiple tests and tests without numeric results in units of µg/g.InterventionFC testing for the diagnosis of IBD. Disease status was confirmed by a recorded diagnostic code and/or a drug code of an IBD-specific medication at three time points after the FC test date.Main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the differential of IBD versus non-IBD and IBD versus irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) at the 50 and 100 µg/g thresholds.Results5970 patients met the inclusion criteria and had at least 6 months of follow-up data after FC testing. 1897 had an IBS diagnosis, 208 had an IBD diagnosis, 31 had a colorectal cancer diagnosis, 80 had more than one diagnosis and 3754 had no subsequent diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 92.9% (88.6% to 95.6%), 61.5% (60.2% to 62.7%), 8.1% (7.1% to 9.2%) and 99.6% (99.3% to 99.7%), respectively, at the threshold of 50 µg/g. Raising the threshold to 100 µg/g missed less than 7% additional IBD cases. Longer follow-up had no effect on test accuracy. Overall, uncertainty was greater for specificity than sensitivity. General practitioners' (GPs') referral decisions did not follow the anticipated clinical pathways in national guidance.ConclusionsGPs can be confident in excluding IBD on the basis of a negative FC test in a population with low pretest risk but should interpret a positive test with caution. The applicability of national guidance to general practice needs to be improved.
| S-EPMC7903095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate the perspective of gastroenterologists regarding the impact of fecal calprotectin (FC) on the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).Patients with known IBD or symptoms suggestive of IBD for whom the physician identified that FC would be clinically useful were recruited. Physicians completed an online "pre survey" outlining their rationale for the test. After receipt of the test results, the physicians completed an online "post survey" to portray their perceived impact of the test result on patient management. Clinical outcomes for a subset of patients with follow-up data available beyond the completion of the "post survey" were collected and analyzed.Of 373 test kits distributed, 290 were returned, resulting in 279 fully completed surveys. One hundred and ninety patients were known to have IBD; 147 (77%) with Crohn's Disease, 43 (21%) Ulcerative Colitis and 5 (2%) IBD unclassified. Indications for FC testing included: 90 (32.2%) to differentiate a new diagnosis of IBD from Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), 85 (30.5%) to distinguish symptoms of IBS from IBD in those known to have IBD and 104 (37.2%) as an objective measure of inflammation. FC levels resulted in a change in management 51.3% (143/279) of the time which included a significant reduction in the number of colonoscopies (118) performed (P < 0.001). Overall, 97.5% (272/279) of the time, the physicians found the test sufficiently useful that they would order it again in similar situations. Follow-up data was available for 172 patients with further support for the clinical utility of FC provided.The FC test effected a change in management 51.3% of the time and receipt of the result was associated with a reduction in the number of colonoscopies performed.
| S-EPMC5037090 | biostudies-literature