Introduction: Endoscopy is the gold standard examination for evaluating the activity of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). However, it remains an invasive procedure with a significantly high cost. Many studies have focused on the study of non-invasive markers, particularly fecal calprotectin (FC), in monitoring inflammatory activity in IBD. Objective: The aim of this study is to comparatively evaluate the correlation between biological markers, including FC, and clinical scores with endoscopic findings in assessing inflammatory activity in IBD. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective, analytical study conducted in the Hepato-Gastroenterology Department of Hassan II University Medical Center, Fez, over a period of two years. It includes all patients with IBD who were followed in the department and who underwent clinical, biological (measuring FC and CRP), and endoscopic evaluation through ileocolonoscopy. The latter is based on the SES-CD for Crohn’s disease and the Mayo endoscopic subscore for ulcerative colitis. Results: We collected data on 111 patients in our study, with 49 followed for ulcerative colitis (UC) and 62 for Crohn’s disease. The female/male sex ratio is 1.36. The average age of our patients was 40.6 years. Based on endoscopic activity, patients are divided into two groups: Group I (n = 46), consisting of patients in endoscopic remission, and Group II (n = 65), consisting of patients with active disease endoscopically. Patients in Group I were predominantly in clinical remission (89%) compared to those in Group II (70%), without a significant difference (P = 0.274). The average CRP level was higher in Group II (21 mg/l [57 - 800]) compared to Group I (11 mg/l [57 - 800]), without a significant difference in this case (p = 0.098). The average fecal calprotectin level was significantly higher (p = 0.001) in patients in Group II (253 μg/g [57 - 800]) compared to those in Group I (135.7 μg/g [19.5 - 192]). In our study, we determined a threshold of 157 μg/g to detect endoscopically active IBD with a sensitivity of 86.2% and specificity of 63%. Conclusion: In our series, FC shows a good correlation with endoscopic activity. Therefore, it constitutes an alternative method that allows for extending intervals between control endoscopies, thus reducing the cost of managing IBD.
References
[1]
Sairenji, T., Collins, K.L. and Evans, D.V. (2017) An Update on Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 44, 673-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2017.07.010
[2]
Flynn, S. and Eisenstein, S. (2019) Inflammatory Bowel Disease Presentation and Diagnosis. Surgical Clinics of North America, 99, 1051-1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2019.08.001
[3]
Ma, C., Battat, R., Khanna, R., Parker, C.E., Feagan, B.G. and Jairath, V. (2019) What Is the Role of C-Reactive Protein and Fecal Calprotectin in Evaluating Crohn’s Disease Activity? Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology, 38, Article ID: 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2019.02.004
[4]
Spiceland, C.M. and Lodhia, N. (2018) Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Role in Diagnosis, Management, and Treatment. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 24, 4014-4020. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i35.4014
[5]
Manceau, H., Chicha-Cattoir, V., Puy, H. and Peoc’h, K. (2017) Fecal Calprotectin in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Update and Perspectives. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 55, 4014-4020. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0522
[6]
Lichtenstein, G.R., Hanauer, S.B. and Sandborn, W.J. (2009) Management of Crohn’s Disease in Adults. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 104, 465-483. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2008.168
[7]
Berni Canani, R., Terrin, G., Rapacciuolo, L., Miele, E., Siani, M.C., Puzone, C., et al. (2008) Faecal Calprotectin as Reliable Non-Invasive Marker to Assess the Severity of Mucosal Inflammation in Children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Digestive and Liver Disease, 40, 547-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2008.01.017
[8]
Papi, C., Fascì-Spurio, F., Rogai, F., Settesoldi, A., Margagnoni, G. and Annese, V. (2013) Mucosal Healing in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Treatment Efficacy and Predictive Factors. Digestive and Liver Disease, 45, 978-985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2013.07.006
[9]
Cushing, K. and Higgins, P.D.R. (2021) Management of Crohn Disease. JAMA, 325, 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.18936
[10]
Turkay, C. and Kasapoglu, B. (2010) Noninvasive Methods in Evaluation of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Where Do We Stand Now? An Update. Clinics, 65, 221-231. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1807-59322010000200015
[11]
Otte, M.L., Lama Tamang, R., Papapanagiotou, J., Ahmad, R., Dhawan, P. and Singh, A.B. (2023) Mucosal Healing and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Therapeutic Implications and New Targets. WorldJournalofGastroenterology, 29, 1157-1172. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v29.i7.1157
[12]
Sipponen, T. and Kolho, K. (2014) Fecal Calprotectin in Diagnosis and Clinical Assessment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 50, 74-80. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365521.2014.987809
[13]
Sipponen, T., Savilahti, E., Kolho, K., Nuutinen, H., Turunen, U. and Färkkilä, M. (2008) Crohnʼs Disease Activity Assessed by Fecal Calprotectin and Lactoferrin: Correlation with Crohnʼs Disease Activity Index and Endoscopic Findings. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 14, 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/ibd.20312
[14]
Sipponen, T. and Kolho, K. (2010) Faecal Calprotectin in Children with Clinically Quiescent Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 45, 872-877. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365521003782389
[15]
Schoepfer, A.M., Beglinger, C., Straumann, A., Trummler, M., Vavricka, S.R., Bruegger, L.E., et al. (2010) Fecal Calprotectin Correlates More Closely with the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) than CRP, Blood Leukocytes, and the CDAI. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 105, 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.545
[16]
Dhaliwal, A., Zeino, Z., Tomkins, C., Cheung, M., Nwokolo, C., Smith, S., et al. (2014) Utility of Faecal Calprotectin in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): What Cut-Offs Should We Apply? Frontline Gastroenterology, 6, 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2013-100420
[17]
Wagner, M., Peterson, C.G., Ridefelt, P., Sangfelt, P. and Carlson, M. (2008) Fecal Markers of Inflammation Used as Surrogate Markers for Treatment Outcome in Relapsing Inflammatory Bowel Disease. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 14, 5584-5589. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.14.5584
[18]
Guidi, L., Marzo, M., Andrisani, G., Felice, C., Pugliese, D., Mocci, G., et al. (2014) Faecal Calprotectin Assay after Induction with Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor Α Agents in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Prediction of Clinical Response and Mucosal Healing at One Year. Digestive and Liver Disease, 46, 974-979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2014.07.013
[19]
Tibble, J.A., Sigthorsson, G., Bridger, S., Fagerhol, M.K. and Bjarnason, I. (2000) Surrogate Markers of Intestinal Inflammation Are Predictive of Relapse in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterology, 119, 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1053/gast.2000.8523
[20]
Costa, F. (2005) Calprotectin Is a Stronger Predictive Marker of Relapse in Ulcerative Colitis than in Crohn’s Disease. Gut, 54, 364-368. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2004.043406
[21]
Ikhtaire, S., Shajib, M.S., Reinisch, W. and Khan, W.I. (2016) Fecal Calprotectin: Its Scope and Utility in the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Journal of Gastroenterology, 51, 434-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-016-1182-4
[22]
Yamamoto, T., Shimoyama, T., Umegae, S. and Matsumoto, K. (2016) Serial Monitoring of Faecal Calprotectin for the Assessment of Endoscopic Recurrence in Asymptomatic Patients after Ileocolonic Resection for Crohn’s Disease: A Long-Term Prospective Study. Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology, 9, 664-670. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756283x16646562
[23]
Wright, E.K., Kamm, M.A., De Cruz, P., Hamilton, A.L., Ritchie, K.J., et al. (2015) Measurement of Fecal Calprotectin Improves Monitoring and Detection of Recurrence of Crohn’s Disease after Surgery. Gastroenterology, 148, 938-947.e1.
