Current Gastroenterology Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 360–367

Clinical significance of inflammatory markers

Article

Abstract

Inflammatory markers play a key role in the evaluation of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. For patients presenting with nonspecific symptoms of abdominal pain and diarrhea, distinguishing inflammatory bowel disease from other disorders can be difficult, and invasive diagnostic procedures may be required. Inflammatory markers can be useful to differentiate patients who may require further workup from those who do not. Several serum, fecal, and other markers are reviewed for their use in clinical practice. Although no single ideal marker exists, a few show promise in diagnosing inflammatory disease, monitoring disease activity, and predicting relapse.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Vermeire S, Van Assche G, Rutgeerts P: Laboratory markers in IBD: useful, magic, or unnecessary toys? Gut 2006, 55:426–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gupta A, Derbes C, Sellin J: Clinical indications of the use of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies and anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies in the evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease at an Academic Medical Center. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005, 11:898–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murphy SJ, Ullman TA, Abreu MT: Gut microbes in Crohn’s disease: getting to know you better? Am J Gastroenterol 2008, 103:397–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Florin TH, Paterson EW, Fowler EV, Radford-Smith GL: Clinically active Crohn’s disease is the presence of a low C reactive protein Scand J Gastroenterol 2006, 41:306–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thalmaier D, Dambacher J, Seiderer J, et al.: The +1059G/C polymorphism in the C-reactive protein (CRP) gene is associated with involvement of the terminal ileum and decreased serum CRP levels in patients with Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006, 24:1105–1115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reese GE, Constantinides VA, Simillis C, et al.: Diagnostic precision of anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:2410–2422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jaskowski TD, Litwin CM, Hill HR: Analysis of serum antibodies in patients suspected of having inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2006, 13:655–660.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lawrance IC, Hall A, Leong R, et al.: A comparative study of goblet cell and pancreatic exocine autoantibodies combined with ASCA and p-ANCA in Chinese and Caucasian patients with IBD. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005, 11:890–897.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fleshner P, Ippoliti A, Dubinsky M, et al.: Both preoperative perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody and anti-CBir1 expression in ulcerative colitis patients influence pouchitis development after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008, 6:561–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Solberg IC, Lygren I, Cvancarova M, et al.: Predictive value of serologic markers in a population-based Norwegian cohort with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009, 15:406–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amre DK, Lu SE, Costea F, Seidman EG: Utility of serological markers in predicting the early occurrence of complications and surgery in pediatric Crohn’s disease patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:645–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lakatos PL, Altorjay I, Szamosi T, et al.: Pancreatic autoantibodies are associated with reactivity to microbial antibodies, penetrating disease behavior, perianal disease, and extraintestinal manifestations, but not with NOD2/CARD15 or TLR4 genotype in a Hungarian IBD cohort. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009, 15:365–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Desplat-Jégo S, Johanet C, Escande A, et al.: Update on anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies, anti-nuclear associated anti-neutrophil antibodies and antibodies to exocrine pancreas detected by indirect immunofluorescence as biomarkers in chronic inflammatory bowel diseases: results of a multicenter study. World J Gastroenterol 2007, 13:2312–2318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lichtenstein GR, Hanauer SB, Sandborn WJ; Practice Parameters Committee of American College of Gastroenterology: Management of Crohn’s disease in adults. Am J Gastroenterol 2009, 104:465–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papp M, Norman GL, Altorjay I, Lakatos PL: Utility of serological markers in inflammatory bowel diseases: gadget or magic? World J Gastroenterol 2007, 13:2028–2036.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bossuyt X: Serologic markers in inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Chem 2006, 52:171–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Targan SR, Landers CJ, Yang H, et al.: Antibodies to CBir1 flagellin define a unique response that is associated independently with complicated Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2005, 128:2020–2028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dotan I, Fishman S, Dgani Y, et al.: Antibodies against laminaribioside and chitobioside are novel serologic markers in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2006, 131:366–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Solem CA, Loftus EV Jr, Tremaine WJ, et al.: Correlation of C-reactive protein with clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and radiographic activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005, 11:707–712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vermeire S, Van Assche G, Rutgeerts P: C-reactive protein as a marker for inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2004, 10:661–665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zilberman L, Maharshak N, Arbel Y, et al.: Correlated expression of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in relation to disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease: lack of differences between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Digestion 2006, 73:205–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henriksen M, Jahnsen J, Lygren I, et al.: C-reactive protein: a predictive factor and marker of inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease. Results from a prospective population-based study. Gut 2008, 57:1518–1523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koelewijn CL, Schwartz MP, Samsom M, Oldenburg B: C-reactive protein levels during a relapse of Crohn’s disease are associated with the clinical course of the disease. World J Gastroenterol 2008, 14:85–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ferrante M, Henckaerts L, Joossens M, et al.: New serological markers in inflammatory bowel disease are associated with complicated disease behaviour. Gut 2007, 56:1394–1403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dubinsky MC, Lin YC, Dutridge D, et al.: Serum immune responses predict rapid disease progression among children with Crohn’s disease: immune responses predict disease progression. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:360–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sandborn WJ, Colombel JF, Enns R, et al.: Natalizumab induction and maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1912–1925.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Stoinov S, et al.: Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:228–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schreiber S, Khaliq-Kareemi M, Lawrance IC, et al.: Maintenance therapy with certolizumab pegol for Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:239–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roseth AG, Fagerhol MK, Aadland E, et al.: Assessment of the neutrophil dominating protein calprotectin in feces. A methodologic study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1992, 27:793–798.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tibble JA, Sigthorsson G, Bridger S, et al.: Surrogate markers of intestinal inflammation are predictive of relapse in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2000, 119:15–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    von Roon AC, Karamountzos L, Purkayastha S, et al.: Diagnostic precision of fecal calprotectin for inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal malignancy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007, 102:803–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tibble J, Teahon K, Thjodleifsson B, et al.: A simple method for assessing intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease. Gut 2000, 47:506–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gaya DR, Lyon TD, Duncan A, et al.: Faecal calprotectin in the assessment of Crohn’s disease activity. QJM 2005, 98:435–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xiang JY, Ouyang Q, Li GD, et al.: Clinical value of fecal calprotectin in determining disease activity of ulcerative colitis. World J Gastroenterol 2008, 14:53–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scarpa M, D’Incà R, Basso D, et al.: Fecal lactoferrin and calprotectin after ileocolonic resection for Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 2007, 50:861–869.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thomas P, Rihani H, Røseth A, et al.: Assessment of ileal pouch inflammation by single stool calprotectin assay. Dis Colon Rectum 2000, 43:214–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wildt S, Nordgaard-Lassen I, Bendtsen F, et al.: Metabolic and inflammatory faecal markers in collagenous colitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007, 19:567–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Calpro AS: PhiCal ELISA test. Available at www.calpro.no. Accessed April 2009.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sugi K, Saitoh O, Hirata I, et al.: Fecal lactoferrin as a marker for disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease: comparison with other neutrophil-derived proteins. Am J Gastroenterol 1996, 91:927–934.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    van der Sluys Veer A, Biemond I, Verspaget HW, Lamers CB: Faecal parameters in the assessment of activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1999, 230:106–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Walker TR, Land ML, Cook TM, et al.: Serial fecal lactoferrin measurements are useful in the interval assessment of patients with active and inactive inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2004, 126:A215.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kane SV, Sandborn WJ, Rufo PA, et al.: Fecal lactoferrin is a sensitive and specific marker in identifying intestinal inflammation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003, 98:1309–1314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Langhorst J, Elsenbruch S, Mueller T, et al.: Comparison of 4 neutrophil-derived proteins in feces as indicators of disease activity in ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005, 11:1085–1091.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Parsi MA, Shen B, Achkar JP, et al.: Fecal lactoferrin for diagnosis of symptomatic patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Gastroenterology 2004, 126:1280–1286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kaiser T, Langhorst J, Wittkkowski H, et al.: Faecal S100A12 as a noninvasive marker distinguishing inflammatory bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome. Gut 2007, 56:1706–1713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brouwer J, Smekens F.: Instability of fecal lysozyme [letter]. Clin Chim Acta 1991, 201:137–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Peterson CG, Eklund E, Taha Y, et al.: A new method for the quantification of neutrophil and eosinophil cationic proteins in feces: establishment of normal levels and clinical application in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2002, 97:1755–1762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Saiki T: Myeloperoxidase concentrations in the stool as a new parameter of inflammatory bowel disease. Kurume Med J 1998, 45:69–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Karbach U, Ewe K, Bodenstein H: Alpha 1-antitrypsin, a reliable endogenous marker for intestinal protein loss and its application in patients with Crohn’s disease. Gut 1983, 24:718–723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Biancone L, Fantini M, Tosti C, et al.: Fecal alpha-1-antitrypsin clearance as a marker of clinical relapse in patients with Crohn’s disease of the distal ileum. European J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003, 15:261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Becker K, Niederau C, Frieling T: Faecal excretion of alpha 2-macroglobulin: a novel marker for disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Z Gastroenterol 1999, 37:597–605.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kapel N, Meillet D, Favennec L, et al.: Evaluation of intestinal clearance and faecal excretion of alpha 1-antiproteinase and immunoglobulins during Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1992, 30:197–202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Teahon K, Bjarnason I: Comparison of leukocyte excretion and blood loss in inflammatory disease of the bowel. Gut 1993, 34:1535–1538.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Saverymuttu SH, Peters AM, Crofton ME, et al.: 111Indium autologous granulocytes in the detection of inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 1985, 26:955–960.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Crama-Bohbouth GEBI, Pena AS: Significance of faecal lysozyme excretion and alph-1-antitrypsin clearance in the assessment of activity of inflammatory bowel disease. In Activity Related Abnormalities in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Edited by Ge B. Woerden, The Netherlands: Huybregts Press; 1998:89–103.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Leddin DJ, Paterson WG, DaCosta LR, et al.: Indium-111-labelled autologous leukocyte imaging and faecal excretion. Comparison of conventional methods of assessment of inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis Sci 1987, 32:377–387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hove H, Nordgaard-Andersen I, Mortensen PB: Faecal DL-lactate concentration in 100 gastrointestinal patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 1994, 29:255–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hocke M, Richter L, Bosseckert H, et al.: Platelet activating factor in stool from patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Hepatogastroenterology 1999, 46:2333–2337.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Saiki TMK, Toyonaga A, Ishida H, et al.: Detection of pro and inflammatory cytokines in stools of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1998, 33:616–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nancey S, Perret-Liaudet A, Moussata D, et al.: Urinary Neopterin is a valuable tool in monitoring Crohn’s disease activity. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008, 14:1548–1554.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Reinders CI, Herulf M, Ljung T, et al.: Rectal mucosal nitric oxide in differentiation of inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005, 3:777–783.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Medicine Group, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Baylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations