2017
DOI: 10.1177/2050640616686517
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Compliance with the faecal calprotectin test in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Abstract: 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.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
30
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
4
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, CRP determination [4] is limited by poor specificity and sensitivity as (i) CRP level is altered in other acute inflammatory conditions in addition to CD and UC and (ii) up to 25% of patients, who have demonstrable disease activity determined by endoscopy have normal CRP values [5]. FC determination has far greater accuracy for detecting intestinal inflammation than CRP [6] but it requires collection of faecal sample which is cumbersome and has poor patient acceptability [7]. Thus, there is a need for more accurate and non-invasive biomarkers for establishing disease activity in IBD.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, CRP determination [4] is limited by poor specificity and sensitivity as (i) CRP level is altered in other acute inflammatory conditions in addition to CD and UC and (ii) up to 25% of patients, who have demonstrable disease activity determined by endoscopy have normal CRP values [5]. FC determination has far greater accuracy for detecting intestinal inflammation than CRP [6] but it requires collection of faecal sample which is cumbersome and has poor patient acceptability [7]. Thus, there is a need for more accurate and non-invasive biomarkers for establishing disease activity in IBD.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our experience, we investigated patients' views regarding usability and satisfaction with IBDoc ® . Two thirds of enrolled patients performed the test resulting in double the adherence compared to a previous study of our group showing an adherence rate of 35% with the ELISA test [14]. The test was classified as simple to use by most users (95%) and the percentage of satisfied patients was very high (95%).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Moreover, it has also been applied to some procedures such as the measurement of fecal calprotectin (FC) allowing the home dosage of this biomarker, which is frequently used in daily practice [13]. The FC home measurement does not involve the transport of feces to the laboratory and could improve patient adherence to the test compared to traditional method, which is approximately 40% [14,15]. To date, despite the conceivable benefits associated with the widespread adoption of these innovations, their use in clinical practice is limited and some doubts about their usefulness remain [16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meanwhile, another showed that FC correlated well with the degree of ileal inflammation on cross-sectional imaging and surgical pathology [ 61 ]. However, more recent studies have challenged the efficacy of FC as a surrogate marker for small-bowel CD activity [ 47 , 48 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. One study found poor correlation between FC and endoscopic disease activity in isolated small-bowel CD [ 47 ].…”
Section: Objective Measurements Of CD Activitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, FC cannot be recommended for use in diagnosing or monitoring disease activity in the small intestine, although it remains an excellent biomarker for colonic inflammation in CD. However, stool collection can be burdensome and uncomfortable for many patients, which may lead to poor adherence, as evidenced by a study evaluating FC test compliance in a CD cohort where only 35% (37/101) of participants performed the test [ 64 ].…”
Section: Objective Measurements Of CD Activitymentioning
confidence: 99%