No abstract

No abstract

The relapse rate differed greatly between patients with complete and partial mucosal healing. A shift from complete to partial healing in clinically stable UC patients can be predicted by monitoring PLT.

Accurate evaluation of disease activity is essential for choosing an appropriate treatment and follow-up plan for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Endoscopy is required for accurately evaluating disease activity, but the procedures are sometimes invasive and burdensome to patients. Therefore, alternative non-invasive methods for evaluating or predicting disease activity including mucosal status are desirable. Fecal calprotectin (Fcal) is the most widely used fecal marker for IBD, and many articles have described the performance of the marker in predicting disease activity, mucosal healing (MH), treatment efficacy, and risk of relapse. Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can quantify the concentration of hemoglobin in stool and was originally used for the screening of colorectal cancer. We recently reported that FIT is also a useful biomarker for IBD. A direct comparison between the use of Fcal and FIT showed that both methods predicted MH in ulcerative colitis equally well. However, in the case of Crohn's disease, FIT was less sensitive to lesions in the small intestine, compared to Fcal. FIT holds several advantages over Fcal in regards to user-friendliness, including a lower cost, easy and clean handling, and the ability to make rapid measurements by using an automated measurement system. However, there is insufficient data to support the application of FIT in IBD. Further studies into the use of FIT for evaluating the inflammatory status of IBD are warranted.

Background/AimsBoth fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and fecal calprotectin (Fcal) results are useful biomarkers for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the situations in which each marker should be used are largely unknown.MethodsA total of 110 colonoscopy intervals of UC patients were assessed, and correlations between changes in colonoscopic findings and changes in the two aforementioned fecal markers were examined.ResultsAmong patients with mucosal healing (MH) and negative FIT or Fcal results at the initial colonoscopy, FIT and Fcal findings exhibited accuracies of 93% (38/41) and 79% (26/33), respectively, for predicting the results of the subsequent examination. Among the 24 patients who showed endoscopic activity at the precedent colonoscopy and MH at the subsequent examination, positive-to-negative conversion of FIT and Fcal findings at the subsequent examination was observed in 92% (12/13) and 62% (8/13) of patients, respectively. Among the 43 patients who showed endoscopic activity at both the precedent and subsequent examinations, Fcal findings reflected the change in endoscopic activity better than FIT results (r=0.59, p<0.0001 vs r=0.30, p=0.054).ConclusionsThe FIT is useful for confirming MH and the occurrence of relapse. In contrast, Fcal is useful for monitoring the mucosal status of patients with active inflammation.