4.5 Article

Plasma Chromogranin A in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

期刊

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 867-871

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1002/ibd.20851

关键词

Crohn's disease; chromogranin A; ulcerative colitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Circulating chromogranin A (CgA) levels, a marker for neuroendocrine tumors including carcinoids, have recently been found elevated in some patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), although their significance is Unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate CgA levels and their possible relationship with clinical and biochemical disease activity indexes in 119 IBD patients. Methods: The study groups comprised 75 patients with ulcerative colitis, 44 with Crohn's disease, in both active and quiescent phases, and 85 controls. Results: Mean C-A levels were significantly higher in IBD patients than in controls (20.4 +/- 14.0 [SD] versus 11.3 +/- 4.3 U/L, P < 0.001), without any statistical significant difference among the IBD Subgroups. However, C-A levels were above the normal range (20 U/L) in 25/45 patients with active IBD (55%; 95% confidence interval 101: 40%-70%) and in 18/74 patients with remission IBD (24%; 95% CI: 15%-36%) (P < 0.001, Fisher's test). Among biochemical parameters, CgA correlated with serum TNF-alpha levels (r(s) = 0.398 P < 0.001). Conclusions: High CgA levels can occur in IBD. The disease activity and TNF-alpha levels seem to influence the CgA pattern, which Could reflect the neuroendocrine system activation in response to inflammation. From a clinical point of view, the possibility of high CgA levels in IBD should be taken into consideration when a carcinoid is Suspected in such patients, since this event seems to be more frequent, than previously considered. Indeed, revision of our 83 patients with gastrointestinal carcinoids. Studied between 1997 and 2006, showed that 4 patients had IBD, with a prevalence of 4.8%, which is markedly higher than that of the general Population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据