coloproctology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 250–258 | Cite as

Klinik, CRP, Calprotectin, MRT oder Endoskopie?

Strategien zur sinnvollen Therapieüberwachung bei CED
Übersichten
  • 149 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Die Durchführung einer individualisierten Therapie chronisch-entzündlicher Darmerkrankungen bedarf einer intensiven Überwachung, insbesondere bei Patienten mit Risikoprofil für schwerwiegende Verläufe sowie nachweisbarer Entzündung. Eine rein klinische Evaluation hat eine Reihe von Limitationen, so dass weitere Instrumente zur Erfassung der Entzündung notwendig sind. Zu den nichtinvasiven Maßnahmen der Therapieüberwachung gehören insbesondere das CRP bei Morbus Crohn sowie fäkale Stuhlmarker wie Calprotectin für Morbus Crohn und Colitis ulcerosa, die teilweise eine sehr gute Korrelation zur endoskopischen Aktivität aufweisen. Zudem korrelieren Veränderungen dieser Parameter mit einem Therapieansprechen und weisen auf eine erhöhte Rezidivgefahr hin. Die Endoskopie bleibt allerdings weiterhin eine wichtige Methode in der Therapieüberwachung, die gerade bei wichtigen Therapieentscheidungen herangezogen werden muss. Nach Therapieeskalation oder auch -deeskalation kann man sich in der Beurteilung der Effektivität oft auf die Überprüfung von CRP und/oder fäkales Calprotectin beschränken und somit erneute endoskopische Untersuchungen vermeiden. Weniger gut evaluiert in der Therapieüberwachung sind Ultraschall, MRT und Kapselendoskopie, so dass diese eher in Einzelfällen herangezogen werden. Somit stehen insbesondere mit CRP und Calprotectin neben der Endoskopie wichtige Hilfsmittel zur Verfügung, um die Therapie chronisch-entzündlicher Darmerkrankungen nachhaltig zu optimieren.

Schlüsselwörter

Chronisch-entzündliche Darmerkrankung (CED) Morbus Crohn Colitis ulcerosa Entzündungsaktivität Therapieüberwachung 

Clinical symptoms, C-reactive protein, calprotectin, MRI or endoscopy?

Stragegies for therapy monitoring of IBD

Abstract

Close monitoring of the therapeutic efficacy and inflammation in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is important in order to improve outcome and realize individualized treatment. As a symptom-based evaluation only has several limitations more objective tools are necessary. In this aspect C-reactive protein (CRP) especially in Crohn’s disease (CD) and fecal markers, such as calprotectin in both CD and ulcerative colitis (UC) have been shown to be associated with the inflammatory burden and endoscopic activity. Furthermore, they correlate well with treatment response and can be used in order to make a better prediction of disease relapse. Endoscopic evaluation is, however, still often necessary especially for important decisions on either treatment intensification or de-escalation. During therapy CRP and fecal markers can be used to evaluate efficacy and often make endoscopic interventions unnecessary. Ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and capsule endoscopy are less well evaluated and are reserved for solitary cases. In summary, CRP, fecal calprotectin in addition to endoscopy represent important tools in order to optimize IBD treatment.

Keywords

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) Crohn’s disease Ulcerative colitis Inflammatory burden Therapy monitoring 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Colombel JF, Sandborn WJ, Reinisch W et al (2010) Infliximab, azathioprine, or combination therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 362: 1383–1395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Louis E, Mary JY, Vernier-Massouille G et al (2012) Maintenance of remission among patients with Crohn’s disease on antimetabolite therapy after infliximab therapy is stopped. Gastroenterology 142: 63–70 e5 (quiz e31)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Best WR, Becktel JM, Singleton JW et al (1976) Development of a Crohn’s disease activity index. National Cooperative Crohn’s Disease Study. Gastroenterology 70: 439–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sipponen T, Savilahti E, Kolho KL et al (2008) Crohn’s disease activity assessed by fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin: correlation with Crohn’s disease activity index and endoscopic findings. Inflamm Bowel Dis 14: 40–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harvey RF, Bradshaw JM (1980) A simple index of Crohn’s-disease activity. Lancet 1: 514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stidham RW, Higgins PD (2010) Value of mucosal assessment and biomarkers in inflammatory bowel disease. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 4: 285–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casellas F, Rodrigo L, Nino P et al (2007) Sustained improvement of health-related quality of life in Crohn’s disease patients treated with infliximab and azathioprine for 4 years. Inflamm Bowel Dis 13: 1395–1400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cosnes J, Cattan S, Blain A et al (2002) Long-term evolution of disease behavior of Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 8: 244–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loly C, Belaiche J, Louis E (2008) Predictors of severe Crohn’s disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 43: 948–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pepys MB, Hirschfield GM (2003) C-reactive protein: a critical update. J Clin Invest 111: 1805–1812PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peyrin-Biroulet L, Gonzalez F, Dubuquoy L et al (2012) Mesenteric fat as a source of C reactive protein and as a target for bacterial translocation in Crohn’s disease. Gut 61: 78–85PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones J, Loftus EV Jr, Panaccione R et al (2008) Relationships between disease activity and serum and fecal biomarkers in patients with Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 6: 1218–1224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poullis AP, Zar S, Sundaram KK et al (2002) A new, highly sensitive assay for C-reactive protein can aid the differentiation of inflammatory bowel disorders from constipation- and diarrhoea-predominant functional bowel disorders. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 14: 409–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boirivant M, Leoni M, Tariciotti D et al (1988) The clinical significance of serum C reactive protein levels in Crohn’s disease. Results of a prospective longitudinal study. J Clin Gastroenterol 10: 401–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reinisch W, Wang Y, Oddens BJ et al (2012) C-reactive protein, an indicator for maintained response or remission to infliximab in patients with Crohn’s disease: a post-hoc analysis from ACCENT I. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 35: 568–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Louis E, Vermeire S, Rutgeerts P et al (2002) A positive response to infliximab in Crohn disease: association with a higher systemic inflammation before treatment but not with − 308 TNF gene polymorphism. Scand J Gastroenterol 37: 818–824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kiss LS, Szamosi T, Molnar T et al (2011) Early clinical remission and normalisation of CRP are the strongest predictors of efficacy, mucosal healing and dose escalation during the first year of adalimumab therapy in Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 34: 911–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jurgens M, Mahachie John JM, Cleynen I et al (2011) Levels of C-reactive protein are associated with response to infliximab therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 9: 421–427 e1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saverymuttu SH, Hodgson HJ, Chadwick VS et al (1986) Differing acute phase responses in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Gut 27: 809–813PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cacheux W, Seksik P, Lemann M et al (2008) Predictive factors of response to cyclosporine in steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol 103: 637–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Høivik ML, Moum B, Solberg IC et al (2012) Work disability in inflammatory bowel disease patients 10 years after disease onset: results from the IBSEN Study. Gut 62: 368–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henriksen M, Jahnsen J, Lygren I et al (2008) C-reactive protein: a predictive factor and marker of inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease. Results from a prospective population-based study. Gut 57: 1518–1523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Samuel S, Bruining DH, Loftus EV Jr et al (2013) Validation of the ulcerative colitis colonoscopic index of severity and its correlation with disease activity measures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 11: 49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doumatey AP, Chen G, Tekola Ayele F et al (2012) C-reactive protein (CRP) promoter polymorphisms influence circulating CRP levels in a genome-wide association study of African Americans. Hum Mol Genet 21: 3063–3072PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lewis JD (2011) The utility of biomarkers in the diagnosis and therapy of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 140: 1817–1826 e2PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tibble JA, Sigthorsson G, Bridger S et al (2000) Surrogate markers of intestinal inflammation are predictive of relapse in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 119: 15–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scarpa M, D’Inca R, Basso D et al (2007) Fecal lactoferrin and calprotectin after ileocolonic resection for Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 50: 861–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lamb CA, Mohiuddin MK, Gicquel J et al (2009) Faecal calprotectin or lactoferrin can identify postoperative recurrence in Crohn’s disease. Br J Surg 96: 663–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Costa F, Mumolo MG, Ceccarelli L et al (2005) Calprotectin is a stronger predictive marker of relapse in ulcerative colitis than in Crohn’s disease. Gut 54: 364–368PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Axtell AE, Lee MH, Bristow RE et al (2007) Multi-institutional reciprocal validation study of computed tomography predictors of suboptimal primary cytoreduction in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 25: 384–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sipponen T, Bjorkesten CG, Farkkila M et al (2010) Faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin are reliable surrogate markers of endoscopic response during Crohn’s disease treatment. Scand J Gastroenterol 45: 325–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vermeire S, Van Assche G, Rutgeerts P (2006) Laboratory markers in IBD: useful, magic, or unnecessary toys? Gut 55: 426–431PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Poullis A, Foster R, Northfield TC et al (2002) Review article: faecal markers in the assessment of activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 16: 675–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ho GT, Lee HM, Brydon G et al (2009) Fecal calprotectin predicts the clinical course of acute severe ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol 104: 673–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Molander P, af Bjorkesten CG, Mustonen H et al (2012) Fecal calprotectin concentration predicts outcome in inflammatory bowel disease after induction therapy with TNFalpha blocking agents. Inflamm Bowel Dis 18: 2011–2017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lonnkvist MH, Theodorsson E, Holst M et al (2011) Blood chemistry markers for evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease during infliximab therapy. Scand J Gastroenterol 46: 420–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sipponen T, Savilahti E, Karkkainen P et al (2008) Fecal calprotectin, lactoferrin, and endoscopic disease activity in monitoring anti-TNF-alpha therapy for Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 14: 1392–1398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Parente F, Molteni M, Marino B et al (2009) Bowel ultrasound and mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. Dig Dis 27: 285–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parente F, Greco S, Molteni M et al (2003) Role of early ultrasound in detecting inflammatory intestinal disorders and identifying their anatomical location within the bowel. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 18: 1009–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hollerbach S, Geissler A, Schiegl H et al (1998) The accuracy of abdominal ultrasound in the assessment of bowel disorders. Scand J Gastroenterol 33: 1201–1208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parente F, Molteni M, Marino B et al (2010) Are colonoscopy and bowel ultrasound useful for assessing response to short-term therapy and predicting disease outcome of moderate-to-severe forms of ulcerative colitis?: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 105: 1150–1157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Allez M, Lemann M, Bonnet J et al (2002) Long term outcome of patients with active Crohn’s disease exhibiting extensive and deep ulcerations at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97: 947–953PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Froslie KF, Jahnsen J, Moum BA et al (2007) Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: results from a Norwegian population-based cohort. Gastroenterology 133: 412–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schnitzler F, Fidder H, Ferrante M et al (2009) Mucosal healing predicts long-term outcome of maintenance therapy with infliximab in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 15: 1295–1301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Baert F, Moortgat L, Van Assche G et al (2010) Mucosal healing predicts sustained clinical remission in patients with early-stage Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 138: 463–468 (quiz e10–11)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Modigliani R, Mary JY, Simon JF et al (1990) Clinical, biological, and endoscopic picture of attacks of Crohn’s disease. Evolution on prednisolone. Groupe d’Etude Therapeutique des Affections Inflammatoires Digestives. Gastroenterology 98: 811–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Landi B, Anh TN, Cortot A et al (1992) Endoscopic monitoring of Crohn’s disease treatment: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The Groupe d’Etudes Therapeutiques des Affections Inflammatoires Digestives. Gastroenterology 102: 1647–1653PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rutgeerts P, Geboes K, Vantrappen G et al (1990) Predictability of the postoperative course of Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 99: 956–963PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ardizzone S, Maconi G, Russo A et al (2006) Randomised controlled trial of azathioprine and 5-aminosalicylic acid for treatment of steroid dependent ulcerative colitis. Gut 55: 47–53PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, Feagan BG et al (2009) Colectomy rate comparison after treatment of ulcerative colitis with placebo or infliximab. Gastroenterology 137: 1250–1260 (quiz 1520)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bessissow T, Lemmens B, Ferrante M et al (2012) Prognostic value of serologic and histologic markers on clinical relapse in ulcerative colitis patients with mucosal healing. Am J Gastroenterol 107: 1684–1692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rimola J, Rodriguez S, Garcia-Bosch O et al (2009) Magnetic resonance for assessment of disease activity and severity in ileocolonic Crohn’s disease. Gut 58: 1113–1120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rimola J, Ordas I, Rodriguez S et al (2010) Colonic Crohn’s disease: value of magnetic resonance colonography for detection and quantification of disease activity. Abdom Imaging 35: 422–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Friedrich C, Fajfar A, Pawlik M et al (2012) Magnetic resonance enterography with and without biphasic contrast agent enema compared to conventional ileocolonoscopy in patients with Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 18: 1842–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dionisio PM, Gurudu SR, Leighton JA et al (2010) Capsule endoscopy has a significantly higher diagnostic yield in patients with suspected and established small-bowel Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 105: 1240–1248 (quiz 1249)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dignass A, Van Assche G, Lindsay JO et al (2010) The second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: current management. J Crohns Colitis 4: 28–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dignass A, Eliakim R, Magro F et al (2012) Second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis part 1: definitions and diagnosis. J Crohns Colitis 6: 965–990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dignass A, Lindsay JO, Sturm A et al (2012) Second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis part 2: current management. J Crohns Colitis 6: 991–1030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hoffmann J, Preiss JC, Autschbach F et al (2008) S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Morbus Crohn“ Ergebnisse einer Evidenz-basierten Konsensuskonferenz der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten zusammen mit dem Kompetenznetz Chronisch entzündliche Darmerkrankungen. Z Gastroenterol 46: 1094–1146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dignass A, Preiss JC, Aust DE et al (2011) Updated German guideline on diagnosis and treatment of ulcerative colitis, 2011. Z Gastroenterol 49: 1276–1341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Gastroenterologie und HepatologieCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus MitteBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations