4.4 Article

Fecal calprotectin-a valuable predictor of microscopic colitis

期刊

出版社

VERDUCI PUBLISHER

关键词

Fetal calprotectin; Watery diarrhea; Lymphocytic colitis; Collagenous colitis; Microscopic colitis; Quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to explore the correlation between fecal calprotectin (FC) levels and age, alcohol consumption, and beta blocker use in microscopic colitis (MC) patients. The results showed that high levels of FC concentrations were associated with increased risk of diarrhea flare-ups and worsened quality of life. Therefore, frequent monitoring of FC concentrations and preventive measures should be taken to improve the quality of life for these patients.
OBJECTIVE: Microscopic colitis (MC) has been of major concern worldwide due to its relapsing and remitting nature of chron-ic diarrhea. Quality of life of patients suffering from this disease is quite debilitating. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In order to un-derstand the role and importance of fecal calpro-tectin (FC) we performed a statistical analysis on the patients suffering from chronic diarrhea and admitted to our hospital from 2014 to 2020, and who were prescribed Loperamide (Imodium) or Budesonide or a combination of both and had undergone FC detection test. RESULTS: FC was found to be significantly correlated to the age, alcohol consumption and beta blocker use. A high level of the FC concen-trations increases the chances of having flare-ups of diarrhea episodes making the quality of life of such patients worse. CONCLUSIONS: FC concentrations should be monitored frequently and precautionary mea-sures to avoid a relapse should be aimed. Mea-sures to improve quality of life, should be of prime concern. In-depth research is required to better understand MC and to find better treatment op-tions which can be used on a long-term basis, in-stead of anti-motility drugs which are able to con-trol the acute episodes, but when discontinued result in an increased tendency to have relapses.

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

4.4
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