Laboratory markers in IBD: useful, magic, or unnecessary toys?

Vermeire, Séverine

doi:10.1136/gut.2005.069476

Cited by 811 publications

(671 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

612

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In anemic group, there was significant increase in C-reactive protein when compared to control group. The elevated serum CRP resulted in impaired iron absorption with interaction with iron metabolism and reduction of serum transferrin [21,22]. Meanwhile, there was significant decrease in C-reactive protein in iron oxide nanoparticles group when compared to anemia group and ferrous sulfate group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Versus Ferrous Sulfate In Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia In Rats

Elshemy

2018

NIDOC-ASRT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

F errous sulfate is the most commonly used drug for treatment of iron deficiency anemia, but it is badly absorbed and causes many unfavorable side effects. Nanotechnology is a way to decrease the side effects of drugs and to increase the drug bioavailability. So, this study is designed to investigate the effect of iron oxide nanoparticles in comparison to ferrous sulphate in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in rats. Forty male albino rats were divided into two main groups: Control group (10 rats) and anemic group (30 rats) that received standard iron free basal diet for six weeks. Then the anemic group was subdivided into three groups (10 rats) in each group: anemic control group, ferrous sulfate group (received ferrous sulfate 0.4 mg/ kg b.w/ 10 days) and iron oxide nanoparticles group (received iron oxide nanoparticles 0.4 mg/ kg b.w/ 10 days) in the drinking water. Iron oxide nanoparticlescaused a significant increase in the level of red blood cells (8.80±0.05 10 6 /µL), hemoglobin (18.46±0.33 g/dL), hematocrit (46.66±0.23 %), mean corpuscular volume (MCV) (53.02±0.3 FL), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) (39.56±0.6 %), ferritin (447.6±9.02 µg/L), transferrin saturation (138.0±1.5), total iron binding capacity (TIBC) (145.00±1.15 mg/dL) and serum iron (276.33±2.07 mg/dL). Moreover, it decreased serum malondialdehyde (MDA) (31.85±0.34 nmol/g) and C-reactive protein (CRP) (312.66±1.7 mg/L) when compared to ferrous sulfate group and anemia control groups. These results revealed that iron oxide nanoparticles proved as an effective drug for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in rats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Versus Ferrous Sulfate In Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia In Rats

Elshemy

2018

NIDOC-ASRT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because a single biomarker is very unlikely to satisfy all of these goals, it is very important to consider what clinical information is expected to be gained from using a specific biomarker, and in what clinical situation it will serve as a good surrogate marker for existing algorithms (eg, definition of baseline disease activity, response to treatment, or maintenance of clinical remission) to improve diagnostic decision making, treatment recommendations, patient monitoring, or even prophylactic measures (Table 1). 11, 12, 13 …”

Section: Biomarker Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biomarkers that could be clinically useful in dogs with CIE are markers that reflect the individual risk to develop CIE, evaluate gastrointestinal function (ie, digestion, absorption, secretion, or a combination of these), aid in diagnosing the inflammatory disease process, indicate disease activity or severity, predict individual response to specific forms of treatment or disease outcome, monitor the severity of gastrointestinal inflammation, or even a combination of these 12, 13, 14. The utility of a marker in routine clinical practice also requires that it be easy to evaluate, inexpensive, and minimally invasive, in addition to being stable in routine biological specimens under clinical conditions 11…”

Section: Biomarkers In Chronic Inflammatory Enteropathies Of Dogsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical utility of currently available biomarkers in inflammatory enteropathies of dogs

Heilmann

Steiner

2018

Veterinary Internal Medicne

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chronic inflammatory enteropathies (CIE) in dogs are a group of disorders that are characterized by chronic persistent or recurrent signs of gastrointestinal disease and histologic evidence of mucosal inflammation. These CIEs are classified as either food‐responsive, antibiotic‐responsive, or immunosuppressant‐responsive enteropathy. Patients not clinically responding to immunomodulatory treatment are grouped as nonresponsive enteropathy and dogs with intestinal protein loss as protein‐losing enteropathy. Disease‐independent clinical scoring systems were established in dogs for assessment of clinical disease severity and patient monitoring during treatment. Histopathologic and routine clinicopathologic findings are usually not able to distinguish the subgroups of CIE. Treatment trials are often lengthy and further diagnostic tests are usually at least minimally invasive. Biomarkers that can aid in defining the presence of disease, site of origin, severity of the disease process, response to treatment, or a combination of these would be clinically useful in dogs with CIE. This article summarizes the following biomarkers that have been evaluated in dogs with CIE during the last decade, and critically evaluates their potential clinical utility in dogs with CIE: functional biomarkers (cobalamin, methylmalonic acid, folate, α1‐proteinase inhibitor, immunoglobulin A), biochemical biomarkers (C‐reactive protein, perinuclear anti‐neutrophilic cytoplasmic antibodies, 3‐bromotyrosine, N‐methylhistamine, calprotectin, S100A12, soluble receptor of advanced glycation end products, cytokines and chemokines, alkaline phosphatase), microbiomic biomarkers (microbiome changes, dysbiosis index), metabolomic biomarkers (serum metabolome), genetic biomarkers (genomic markers, gene expression changes), and cellular biomarkers (regulatory T cells). In addition, important performance criteria of diagnostic tests are briefly reviewed.

show abstract

“…CRP level is a good predictor of remission and response to treatment ( 48 ), and is also a reasonable diagnostic marker; the sensitivity (for the detection of active IBD) ranges from 70 to 100% (typically 60-80%) in the diff erential diagnosis between active CD and irritable bowel syndrome, and from 50 to 60% in UC ( 49 ). In calprotectin in patients with IBD treated with various forms of therapy including 5-aminosalicylic acid, prednisone, and azathioprine.…”

Section: Infl Ammatory Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Markers in IBD to Predict Disease and Treatment Outcomes: Rationale and a Review of Current Status

Lichtenstein¹,

McGovern²

2016

Am J Gastroenterol Suppl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomarkers, radiology fi ndings, and endoscopic studies, together with clinical assessment of patients with infl ammatory bowel disease, can be used to help determine prognosis, assess disease activity, and increasingly to inform treatment decision-making. This article reviews the current "state of the science" regarding the multitude of different tests that can be performed and how these can be used in the clinic to guide management. Initially, when patients present with symptoms suggestive of infl ammatory bowel disease (IBD), standard endoscopic studies and radiographic studies should be performed and the use of combinations of serologic and fecal markers may additionally be incorporated into patient assessment. Once the patient has a formal diagnosis, prognosis should be assessed and serologic evaluation may be used, but in conjunction with endoscopic and radiographic studies. Within the context of evaluating clinical predictors of disease (e.g., disease location, nutritional status, routine blood tests), early mucosal healing has been linked to better outcomes, and failure to heal the mucosa has been associated with poorer outcomes. Evaluation of response to therapy can be approximated with the use of biomarkers (e.g., C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, lactoferrin), and therapeutic drug monitoring has enabled us to assess levels of drug metabolites, drug levels, and antidrug antibodies to guide the ongoing management. Although there is not yet universal adoption of biomarkers to determine treatment choices (e.g., the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy), biomarkers have enabled us to "fi ne tune" treatment of some patients with IBD. Establishing mechanisms of communicating these risks/benefi ts to patients will be a considerable challenge and remains a priority area of research.

show abstract

Laboratory markers in IBD: useful, magic, or unnecessary toys?

Cited by 811 publications

References 53 publications

Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Versus Ferrous Sulfate In Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia In Rats

Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Versus Ferrous Sulfate In Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia In Rats

Clinical utility of currently available biomarkers in inflammatory enteropathies of dogs

Using Markers in IBD to Predict Disease and Treatment Outcomes: Rationale and a Review of Current Status

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About