Fecal immunochemical test as a biomarker for inflammatory bowel diseases: can it rival fecal calprotectin?

Kato, Jun; Hiraoka, Sakiko; Nakarai, Asuka; Takashima, Seisuke; Inokuchi, Toshihiro; Ichinose, Masakazu

doi:10.5217/ir.2016.14.1.5

Cited by 51 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…FC estimate the degree of inflammation in the bowel based on the amount of inflammatory cells, whereas FIT measures the amount of blood from the damaged bowel mucosa[22]. Our study demonstrates that fecal hemoglobin can be used as a marker of endoscopic and clinical disease activityin patients with UC, with a negative FIT accurately reflecting MH and disease remission.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…FIT has been reported from several recent studies as another biomarker[12,13,22]. FC estimate the degree of inflammation in the bowel based on the amount of inflammatory cells, whereas FIT measures the amount of blood from the damaged bowel mucosa[22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Older studies had reported the MH to MES 0 or 1[3], whereas more recent studies have reported MH to MES 0 alone[12]. In recent one study, when the MH to MES 0, FIT appears to be more sensitive than FC for predicting MH (FIT, 95% sensitivity; FC, 82% sensitivity)[22]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessment of disease activity by fecal immunochemical test in ulcerative colitis

Ryu¹,

Kim²,

Park³

et al. 2016

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMTo evaluate the efficacy of quantitative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as biomarker of disease activity in ulcerative colitis (UC).METHODSBetween February 2013 and November 2014, a total of 82 FIT results, obtained in conjunction with colonoscopies, were retrospectivelyevaluated for 63 patients with UC. The efficacy of FIT for evaluation of disease activity was compared to colonoscopic findings. Quantitative fecal blood with automated equipment examined from collected feces. Endoscopic disease severity were assessed using the Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) classification. The extent of disease were classified by proctitis (E1), left sided colitis (E2), and extensive colitis (E3). Clinical activity were subgrouped by remission or active.RESULTSAll of 21 patients with MES 0 had negative FIT (< 7 ng/mL), but 22 patients with MES 2 or 3 had a mean FIT of > 134.89 ng/mL. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of negative FIT about mucosal healing were 73.33%, 81.82%, 91.49%, 51.43% and 73.17%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of predictive value of positive FIT (cutoff value > 100 ng/mL) about active disease status were 45.45%, 93.33%, 71.43%, 82.35% and 26.83%, respectively. Among patients with clinical remission, FIT was negative in 31 (81.6%) of 38 cases, with a mean fecal hemoglobin concentration of 6.12 ng/mL (range, negative to 80.9 ng/mL) for this group of patients. Among patients with clinical active disease, FIT was negative in 16 (36.4%) out of 44 cases, with a mean fecal hemoglobin concentration > 167.4 ng/mL for this group of patients. FIT was positively correlated with endoscopic activity (r = 0.626, P < 0.01) and clinical activity (r = 0.496, P < 0.01). But, FIT did not correlate with the extent of disease (r = -0.047, P = 0.676)CONCLUSIONQuantitative FIT can be a non-invasive and effective biomarker for evaluation of clinical and endoscopic activity in UC, but not predict the extent of disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of disease activity by fecal immunochemical test in ulcerative colitis

Ryu¹,

Kim²,

Park³

et al. 2016

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consecutively, we enrolled patients who met the inclusion criteria. We collected data on patient's clinical background, the UC endoscopic index of severity (UCEIS), [16][17][18][19] Mayo endoscopic subscore, pMayo score, 20 fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) for hemoglobin, [21][22][23] fecal calprotectin (FC), 8,[24][25][26] and laboratory parameters (white blood cell [WBC] count, hemoglobin, albumin, total cholesterol [TC], and C-reactive protein). Patients were evaluated at the time of admission and at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months after the initiation of the induction therapy.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of mucosal healing during induction therapy in patients with acute moderate‐to‐severe ulcerative colitis

Motobayashi

Matsuoka

Takenaka

et al. 2019

J of Gastro and Hepatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim The treat‐to‐target strategy has emerged in ulcerative colitis management. Mucosal healing is the best target, albeit not in induction therapy of acute diseases as clinical conditions vary over a short duration. To determine the targets during induction therapy for acute ulcerative colitis, we identified markers to predict mucosal healing at 3 and 12 months of initiating the induction therapy. Methods This single‐center prospective observational study enrolling 61 adult patients hospitalized for disease exacerbation collected the partial Mayo scores, ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity, fecal markers, and laboratory data (0 day, 2 weeks, and 3 and 12 months) of initiating induction therapy. Results At 2 weeks, patients with mucosal healing at 3 months had had lower partial Mayo and ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity scores and higher white blood cell count and total cholesterol than those without mucosal healing. At 3 months, patients with mucosal healing at 12 months had had lower partial Mayo and ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity scores than those without mucosal healing. A kinetic analysis demonstrated a difference in the partial Mayo scores and total cholesterol and albumin levels at 2 weeks and in the ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity, fecal calprotectin, and fecal immunochemical tests at 3 months between patients who achieved mucosal healing at 12 months and those who did not. Conclusions Partial Mayo scores and total cholesterol levels act as short‐term therapeutic targets during induction therapy in patients with acute ulcerative colitis. Mucosal healing at 3 months correlates to longer time mucosal healing.

show abstract

“…Accurate assessment of disease progression is based on the combination of clinical signs (weight loss, fatigue, quality and frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort) and endoscopic/histologic evaluation of mucosal healing [34]. Noninvasive methods for evaluating disease activity or predicting mucosal status also exist.…”

Section: Outcomes Of Bs In Ibd Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Gastric Surgery (Such as Bariatric Surgery) Impact the Risk of Intestinal Inflammation?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The prevalence of morbid obesity and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is on the rise in association with a Western lifestyle. Both conditions are characterized by chronic inflammation. Bariatric surgery (BS) is a recommended and widely used approach to address severe obesity and its related comorbidities. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are the most frequently performed procedures worldwide. Evidence is scarce on outcomes of BS in IBD patients. Summary: Systemic and adipose-tissue inflammation seems to decrease following BS. Different studies observed decreased serum levels of inflammatory markers (CRP, IL-6, MCP-1, and TNF-α) along with a reduction of insulin resistance both after RYGBP and SG. Several authors documented postbariatric improvement of concomitant chronic inflammatory diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, gout, and psoriasis). There are only few retrospective case series on outcomes of BS in IBD patients. These studies reported safety and feasibility of BS and improvement in IBD status, manifested by prolonged disease remission and decreased use of pharmacotherapy. Weight loss outcomes were excellent and similar to those of non-IBD patients. The preferred surgical approach for morbidly obese IBD patients is SG in order to avoid potential drawbacks of RYGBP, such as malabsorption, intestinal manipulation, and augmentation of technical difficulties for future IBD surgery. Seven cases of newly diagnosed IBD after BS have been reported, which are more likely to result from postoperative intestinal microbial dysbiosis than from directly induced inflammation. Key Messages: This review summarizes the outcomes of BS in IBD patients. SG is the preferable technique for morbidly obese IBD patients, who have potentially a double benefit from BS: weight loss and IBD remission. Further research is necessary to clarify the common pathophysiology of chronic inflammation in morbid obesity and in IBD. Postbariatric changes in gut microbiota should also be assessed to understand whether they promote IBD development or not.

show abstract

Fecal immunochemical test as a biomarker for inflammatory bowel diseases: can it rival fecal calprotectin?

Cited by 51 publications

References 44 publications

Assessment of disease activity by fecal immunochemical test in ulcerative colitis

Assessment of disease activity by fecal immunochemical test in ulcerative colitis

Predictors of mucosal healing during induction therapy in patients with acute moderate‐to‐severe ulcerative colitis

Does Gastric Surgery (Such as Bariatric Surgery) Impact the Risk of Intestinal Inflammation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About