4.7 Article

Correlation of faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin with an endoscopic score for Crohn's disease and histological findings

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 28, Issue 10, Pages 1221-1229

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03835.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Helsinki
  2. Finnish Cultural Foundation
  3. Mary and George C. Ehrnrooth Foundation
  4. Paediatric Research Foundation
  5. Paivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin increasingly serve as surrogate markers of disease activity in IBD. Data on the correlation of these markers with simple endoscopic score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD) and with histological findings are as yet limited. Aim To study the correlation of faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin with SES-CD and histology. Methods During 87 consecutive ileocolonoscopies, SES-CD was calculated and biopsy specimens were obtained from the ileum, colon and rectum. Faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin were measured. Results In ileocolonic or colonic disease, both faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin correlated significantly with colon SES-CD (P < 0.001) and colon histology (P < 0.001). In patients with normal calprotectin or lactoferrin levels, endoscopic and histology scores were significantly lower than in those with elevated concentrations (P < 0.001). In ileal CD, ileal SES-CD correlated with histology (P < 0.001), but not with faecal calprotectin (P = 0.161) or lactoferrin (P = 0.448). Conclusions In ileocolonic and colonic disease, endoscopic score SES-CD and histological findings correlated significantly with faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin. A normal faecal-marker concentration was a reliable surrogate marker for endoscopically and histologically inactive CD. Ileal endoscopic score and histological findings failed, however, to correlate with faecal markers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available