Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4868028/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4868028/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Ulcerative colitis (UC) causes extensive ulceration attributable to intestinal inflammation. This study investigated the effect of past extensive ulcers (PEUs) on fecal calprotectin (FC).

Methods

This retrospective, single-center, observational study included patients with UC with a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0. UC with scarring or pseudopolyposis was defined as PEU and FC and fecal immunochemical occult blood test (FIT) values ere compared. The marker levels of patients in the PEU and non-PEU groups were examined to assess clinical relapse within 12 months.

Results

Of the 61 included patients, 27 had UC with PEUs and 34 had UC without PEUs. Albumin, hemoglobin, and FIT values between groups were not significantly different; however, the C-reactive protein and FC values of the PEU group were significantly higher than those of the non-PEU group. The FC values of the clinical relapse and remission groups within 12 months differed significantly. The cutoff values for the prediction of relapse within 12 months for all patients (area under the curve [AUC], 0.709; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.512–0.907) and the non-PEU group (AUC, 0.893; 95% CI, 0.724–1.000) were both 118 mg/kg.

Conclusions

The FC values of patients with UC and PEUs increased; therefore, it may not be a sufficiently accurate biomarker.

ulcerative colitis

fecal calprotectin

fecal immunochemical occult blood test

pseudopolyposis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the intestinal tract that repeatedly relapses and remits [1]. Severe inflammation attributable to UC causes ulcers; during their healing, subsequent changes in the intestinal mucosa occur. As a result, the intestinal mucosa often becomes scarred; however, if extensive inflammation occurs, then polyps may form, leaving only the normal mucosa [2]. Although this state has no clear definition, it is referred to as pseudopolyposis. Pseudopolyposis includes a variety of morphologies, including hemispherical, club-shaped, and mucosal bridges. These forms vary depending on the degree and range of inflammation. Despite the considerable variation in UC, the incidence of pseudopolyposis is between 4% and 74% [3]. These postinflammatory changes lead to enteroscopic findings, such as past extensive ulcers (PEUs), scarring, and pseudopolyposis. A PEU is considered a result of microfibrosis, which is caused by chronic tissue damage, impaired wound healing, and the fundamental expansion of mesenchymal cells that eventually become part of the extracellular matrix. UC affects the colonic mucosa and submucosa [4, 5]. After clinically severe inflammation and improvement, PEUs often remain in endoscopic remission.

According to STRIDE-II, the current treatment goal for UC is mucosal healing; therefore, biomarkers are used as monitoring tools to determine the achievement of mucosal healing [6]. In particular, fecal calprotectin (FC) and fecal immunochemical occult blood test (FIT) values are useful as fecal biomarkers of UC and can reflect the endoscopic score used to determine the state of the intestinal mucosa [7, 8, 9, 10]. Furthermore, these fecal biomarkers not only reflect the state of the mucosa during measurement but also are useful for predicting subsequent relapse in patients with UC that is in clinical remission [9, 11, 12].

However, the effects of PEUs on these UC biomarkers have not been investigated. In this study, we investigated the effects of fibrosis in UC on fecal biomarkers. To evaluate the effects of PEUs, only inactive cases with a Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) of 0 were targeted.

Patients

We collected data from 127 patients with UC treated at the Hamamatsu University School of Medicine between February 2019 and March 2023. To evaluate the effect of PEUs on biomarkers, we enrolled only cases with an MES of 0 that were endoscopically inactive. Based on these findings, 61 patients with UC and an MES of 0 in endoscopic remission were enrolled in this study (Fig. 1). UC was diagnosed according to the established criteria based on clinical symptoms and endoscopic and histological findings [1]. Patients with non-UC inflammatory bowel diseases, such as Crohn’s disease and inflammatory bowel diseases-unclassified, were excluded.

The Rachmilewitz clinical activity index and MES were used to evaluate the clinical activity and endoscopic activity of UC, respectively [13, 14]. The MES was assessed as follows: 0, normal or inactive disease; 1, mild disease with erythema, decreased vascular patterns, and mild friability; 2, moderate disease with marked erythema, absence of vascular patterns, friability, and erosions; and 3, severe disease with spontaneous bleeding and ulceration [14].

Biomarker measurements

Colonoscopy preparation can influence the FC and FIT values; therefore, samples were collected from the same patient within a few days before colonoscopy preparation. Fecal samples used to perform FC measurements were collected in plastic tubes and stored at − 20°C until shipment to the laboratory (SRL Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The measurement equipment and reagents for FC were a Phadia 250 immunoanalyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and Elia A Calprotectin 2 reagent (Phadia GmbH, Freiburg, Germany) using fluorescence enzyme immunoassay principles, respectively. Fecal samples for the FIT were collected using a stool collection kit (Eiken Chemical, Tokyo, Japan). Samples were immediately processed and examined at our facility using an OC Sensor io (Eiken Chemical).

Study design

The primary outcome measure of this retrospective, single-center, observational study was the difference in biomarkers between the PEU and non-PEU groups. The secondary outcome was the effect of PEU on biomarkers used to predict relapse. The PEU assessment was based on the endoscopist’s report and endoscopic imaging findings, and the imaging findings were determined by a consensus among expert gastrointestinal endoscopists. A PEU was defined as endoscopic evidence of scarring and/or pseudopolyposis. Pseudopolyposis included hemispherical, pedunculated, club-shaped, and mucosal bridge morphologies (Fig. 2). Some inflammatory polyps accompanied by white moss were excluded.

Patients enrolled in this study presented to the hospital once every 3 months. Patients who did not experience relapse were followed-up for up to 12 months, and those who experienced relapse within 12 months continued to present to the outpatient clinic. Clinical relapse was defined as an increase in the clinical activity index compared to that at baseline caused by worsening diarrhea and abdominal pain or frequent or bloody stools that required treatment modification or additional treatment. Treatment was changed at the discretion of the attending physician. Recurrence within 12 months was evaluated based on these findings. Only one of the 61 patients was lost to follow-up; therefore, the relapse cohort included 60 patients.

Statistical analysis

Differences between groups were evaluated using the Mann–Whitney U test or Student’s t test. For comparisons of three or more groups, the Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to determine significant differences. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to predict relapse. The cumulative non-failure rate was evaluated using a Kaplan–Meier analysis with the log-rank test. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 24 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA) and EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan) software [15]. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Patient characteristics

Among the 127 patients with UC, 66 patients with an MES of 1 to 3 were excluded and 61 patients with an MES of 0 were enrolled (Fig. 1). Baseline patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. The median patient age and disease duration were 51 years and 9 years, respectively. The median C-reactive protein (CRP), FIT, and FC values were 0.04 mg/dL, 30 ng/mL, and 174 mg/kg, respectively.

Table 1

Baseline patient characteristics
Characteristics		All
Characteristics		N = 61
Age (year), median [IQR]		51 [39–63]
Male / Female, n (%)		40 (65.6) / 21 (34.4)
Disease duration (year), median [IQR]		9 [5–15]
Disease extent, n (%)	Extensive colitis	42 (68.9)
	Left-sided colitis	12 (19.7)
	Proctitis	7 (11.5)
CAI (Rachmilewitz index), median [IQR]		0 [0–0]
Alb (g/dL), median [IQR]		4.6 [4.4–4.9]
CRP (mg/dL), median [IQR]		0.04 [0.02–0.07]
Hb (g/dL), median [IQR]		14.5 [13.8–15.4]
FC (mg/kg), median [IQR]		71 [36–235]
FIT (ng/mL), median [IQR]		30 [30–30]
Medication at study, n (%)	Oral 5-ASA	42 (68.9)
	Suppository Steroids	2 (3.3)
	Systemic steroids	7 (11.5)
	Immunomodulators	16 (26.2)
	Biologics	28 (45.9)
IQR, interquartile range; CAI, clinical activity index; Alb, albumin; CRP, C-reactive protein; Hb, hemoglobin; FC, fecal calprotectin; FIT, fecal immunochemical occult blood test; 5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid.

Comparison of the non-PEU and PEU groups

During this study, 34 and 27 patients were included in the non-PEU and PEU groups, respectively (Table 2). Among the baseline patient characteristics, only disease extent was significantly different. A particularly large proportion of patients in the PEU group had extensive colitis. A comparison of the test data and biomarkers showed no significant differences in albumin, hemoglobin, and FIT values between the non-PEU and PEU groups (Fig. 3a, b, d). Conversely, CRP and FC values were significantly different between the PEU and non-PEU groups (P = 0.004 and P < 0.001, respectively) (Fig. 3c, e). We performed significance tests for each disease type to evaluate the effect of the disease extent on each numerical value; however, no significant differences were found for each disease type (Table 3).

Table 2

Comparison of characteristics between the non-PEU and PEU groups.
Characteristics		Non-PEU	PEU	P-value
Characteristics		(n = 34)	(n = 27)	P-value
Age (year), median [IQR]		47 [36–59]	58 [41.50–67.50]	0.155
Male / Female, n (%)		20 (58.8) / 14 (41.2)	20 (74.1) / 7 (25.9)	0.281
Disease duration (year), median [IQR]		9 [5–13]	8 [5–15]	0.925
Disease extent, n (%)	Extensive colitis	17 (50.0)	25 (92.6)	0.001
	Left-sided colitis	10 (29.4)	2 (7.4)
	Proctitis	7 (20.6)	0 (0.0)
CAI (Rachmilewitz index), median [IQR]		0 [0–0]	0 [0–0]	0.660
Medication at study, n (%)	Oral 5-ASA	23 (67.6)	19 (70.4)	1
	Suppository Steroids	0 (0.0)	2 (7.4)	0.192
	Systemic steroids	3 (8.8)	4 (14.8)	0.689
	Immunomodulators	8 (23.5)	8 (29.6)	0.770
	Biologics	13 (38.2)	15 (55.6)	0.205
PEU, past extensive ulcer; IQR, interquartile range; CAI, clinical activity index; 5-ASA, 5-aminosalicylic acid.
.

Table 3

Comparison of each marker by disease extent
Variables	Extensive colitis	Left-sided colitis	Proctitis	P-value
Variables	(n = 42)	(n = 12)	(n = 7)	P-value
Alb (g/dL), median [IQR]	4.6 [4.4–4.9]	4.7 [4.3–4.7]	4.5 [4.3–4.7]	0.619
Hb (g/dL), median [IQR]	14.6 [13.9–15.5]	14.4 [12.8–15.0]	14.2 [13.5–14.7]	0.455
CRP (mg/dL), median [IQR]	0.04 [0.03–0.10]	0.03 [0.02–0.06]	0.02 [0.02–0.06]	0.205
FIT (ng/mL), median [IQR]	30 [30–30]	30 [30–30]	30 [30–30]	0.506
FC (mg/kg), median [IQR]	77 [37–240]	105 [38–256]	55 [29–60]	0.464
Alb, albumin; IQR, interquartile range; CRP, C-reactive protein; Hb, hemoglobin; FIT, fecal immunochemical occult blood test; FC, fecal calprotectin.

Relationship between FC, endoscopic score, and clinical relapse

The PEU group was further categorized based on the presence of pseudopolyposis (Table 4). Eleven patients had both scarring and pseudopolyposis, and 16 patients had scars without pseudopolyposis. No significant differences in albumin, hemoglobin, and FIT values were observed among the PEU with pseudopolyposis, PEU without pseudopolyposis, and non-PEU groups. However, CRP levels of the non-PEU group were significantly higher than those of the PEU without pseudopolyposis group (P = 0.017). The FC values of the PEU with pseudopolyposis group were significantly higher than those of the non-PEU group (P = 0.022).

Table 4

Comparison of each marker between the groups of non-PEU, PEU without pseudopolyposis, and PEU with pseudopolyposis.
Variable	Non-PEU	PEU without pseudopolyposis	PEU with pseudopolyposis	Kruskal–Wallis test	Post-hoc test
Variable	(n = 34)	(n = 16)	(n = 11)	P-value	P1	P2	P3
Alb (g/dL), median [IQR]	4.7 [4.1–5.2]	4.6 [3.8–5.5]	4.5 [3.8–4.9]	0.624	0.998	0.638	0.660
Hb (g/dL), median [IQR]	14.4 [11.2–16.7]	14.8 [12.4–17.9]	14.0 [11.6–18.7]	0.634	0.564	0.962	0.967
CRP (mg/dL), median [IQR]	0.03 [0.02–0.18]	0.06 [0.02–1.46]	0.06 [0.02–0.35]	0.014	0.017	0.159	0.96
FIT (ng/mL), median [IQR]	30 [30–1670]	30 [30–178]	30 [30–1830]	0.712	0.945	0.673	0.916
FC (mg/kg), median [IQR]	54.4 [3.8–721]	122 [8.9–1780]	316 [11.9–2499]	0.014	0.232	0.022	0.255
PEU, past extensive ulcer; P1, non-PEU vs. PEU without pseudopolyposis; P2, non-PEU vs. PEU with pseudopolyposis; P3, PEU without pseudopolyposis vs. PEU with pseudopolyposis; Alb, albumin; IQR, interquartile range; CRP, C-reactive protein; Hb, hemoglobin; FIT, fecal immunochemical occult blood test; FC, fecal calprotectin.

Association between clinical relapse predictions using biomarkers and PEUs

Among the 60 patients in the non-PEU group, nine experienced relapse during the 12-month observation period (Table 5). Among all patients, only FC was significantly different between the relapse and remission groups (P = 0.047). Five of 33 patients in the non-PEU group experienced relapse. The relapse group exhibited significantly higher FC values than those of the remission group (P = 0.006). Among the 27 patients with PEUs, no significant differences in any of the biomarkers of the relapse and remission groups were observed. Furthermore, a ROC analysis was performed to predict recurrence using FC (Fig. 4). The cutoff value of FC for predicting relapse within 12 months for all cases was 118 mg/kg (area under the curve [AUC], 0.709; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.512–0.907. During the ROC analysis performed to predict relapse in patients in the non-PEU group, the cutoff value was 118 mg/kg (AUC, 0.893; 95% CI, 0.724–1.000). The Kaplan–Meier analysis divided patients into one group with an FC value ≥ 118 mg/kg and another group with an FC value < 118 mg/kg, and the log-rank test indicated that the relapse-free rates of all cases and non-PEU cases were significantly different. Although a direct comparison of the ROC analysis results of all cases and non-PEU cases was difficult, the accuracy of the values of the non-PEU cases was higher.

Table 5

Comparison of biomarkers between relapse and remission groups
	All			Non-PEU			PEU
	Relapse	Remission	P-value	Relapse	Remission	P-value	Relapse	Remission	P-value
	(n = 9)	(n = 51)	P-value	(n = 5)	(n = 28)	P-value	(n = 4)	(n = 23)	P-value
CRP (mg/dL), median [IQR]	0.06 [0.03–0.08]	0.04 [0.02–0.07]	0.291	0.05 [0.02–0.07]	0.03 [0.02–0.04]	0.412	0.10 [0.05–0.18]	0.05 [0.03–0.18]	0.514
FIT (ng/mL), median [IQR]	30 [30–30]	30 [30–30]	0.926	30 [30–30]	30 [30–30]	0.421	30 [30–30]	30 [30–30]	0.377
FC (mg/kg), median [IQR]	167 [118–525]	65.4 [30–172]	0.047	167 [118–525]	50.6 [23–78.6]	0.006	231 [107–867]	178 [43–379]	0.785
CRP, C-reactive protein; IQR, interquartile range; FIT, fecal immunochemical occult blood test; FC, fecal calprotectin.

During this study, we evaluated the effects of PEUs on FC. Our initial evaluation showed that FC and CRP values of patients in the UC with PEU group were significantly higher than those of patients in the UC without PEU group. We also evaluated relapse prediction using biomarkers. Numerous studies have reported the prediction of clinical relapse of UC based on MES of 0 and 1 [9, 11, 12]. However, this study only targeted cases with an MES of 0. Although the FIT values could not predict clinical relapse, the FC showed the potential to predict relapse. For registered UC cases without PEU, FC effectively predicted relapse. However, for UC cases with PEUs, no significant differences in FC values between the relapse and remission groups were observed. Therefore, the intestinal FC values observed with PEUs in UC may be high, thus decreasing its usefulness as a biomarker. Conversely, FC may be a more useful biomarker of the absence of PEUs in the intestinal tract.

UC is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease with repeated remission and exacerbation; during its course, PEUs occur in the intestinal tract. Under microscopic observation, PEUs can be considered intestinal fibrosis, which is associated with a long-term intestinal healing process after increased and altered extracellular matrix deposition and decreased degradation of extracellular matrix components [16, 17]. Pathological fibrotic deposits and transmural collagen enhancement with UC have been reported [18]. A clinical symptom of UC is anorectal motor dysfunction, even in the absence of inflammation, that is possibly caused by intestinal fibrosis [19]. Furthermore, in cases of severe inflammation accompanied by deep ulcers, transmural inflammation may occur, resulting in intestinal tract narrowing caused by fibrosis that can lead to severe intestinal obstruction.

However, recently, with the advent of various UC treatments, cases of severe inflammation that have remitted have been reported. Some of these cases were in endoscopic remission, but intestinal PEUs, such as scarring and pseudopolyposis, were present. The effects of PEUs that appear to be in remission on test values, including biomarkers, have not been investigated.

During this study, we evaluated the relationship between PEUs and various other biomarkers. We evaluated only cases of endoscopic remission with an MES of 0 to exclude the influence of inflammation. FC values in the intestinal tract with PEUs were significantly increased. Although the mechanism by which PEUs increase FC values is not clear, we posited that the barrier function of the intestinal mucosa decreases as a result of fibrosis, thus making it more susceptible to exposure to pro-inflammatory substances. Matrix metalloproteinases, which are associated with the progression of inflammatory bowel disease symptoms, are also associated with intestinal fibrosis and the intestinal epithelial barrier function [20]. FC is a complex of two proteins, S100A8 and S100A9, released from neutrophils, monocytes, and macrophages. When PEUs are present, neutrophils are attracted by exposure to pro-inflammatory substances caused by the breakdown of the intestinal barrier function, which often results in increased FC levels [21].

Biomarkers reflect endoscopic scores and are also useful for predicting relapse [9, 11, 12]. During this study, only FC was useful for predicting relapse, whereas FIT values were not significantly different between the relapse and remission groups. This study targeted cases in remission with an MES of 0. Although FC had a certain range of values, the FIT value was 30 ng/mL in the first and third quantiles because the lowest detection limit was 30 ng/mL. During this study, the FIT targeted cases with an MES of 0 and did not contribute to relapse prediction. The subgroup analysis showed that FC was useful for predicting relapse in the non-PEU group, thus indicating that intestinal PEUs may affect the FC value and reduce its accuracy as a biomarker. Conversely, excluding PEU cases would improve the usefulness of FC as a biomarker. Factors that can affect FC include infectious enteritis, malignant tumors, colon polyps, colon diverticular disease, irritable bowel syndrome, radiation, and drugs such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The effects of PEUs, including pseudopolyposis, have not been previously investigated [22].

This study had some limitations. This was a single-center, retrospective study with a small sample size. Fibrosis was not endoscopically defined. During this study, a PEU was defined as scarring and pseudopolyposis; however, a clear definition of an endoscopic PEU has not yet been established. Although intestinal fibrosis can be pathologically evaluated [23], PEUs were not pathologically evaluated during this study. However, a PEU is considered a clear endoscopic finding.

Intestinal PEUs in UC result in higher FC values, indicating that FC may not be a sufficiently accurate biomarker.

UC, Ulcerative colitis; PEU, past extensive ulcer; FC, fecal calprotectin; FIT, fecal immunochemical occult blood test; MES, Mayo endoscopic subscore; ROC, receiver-operating characteristic; CRP, C-reactive protein; AUC, area under the curve.

Ethics Approval and consent to Participate

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Hamamatsu University School of Medicine (number 23-327). This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained in the form of an opt-out on the hospital website.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All data required to evaluate the conclusions of this study are presented herein. Additional data related to this study can be requested from the authors.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest related to the publication of this article.

Funding

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

NI contributed to this study. NI and KS designed the study. NT, TE, KT, YA, and ST collected the data. NI analyzed the data. NI and KS prepared the manuscript. TT, TM, MY, MI, YH, TY, and SO provided critical insights into paper preparation.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Magro F, Gionchetti P, Eliakim R, Ardizzone S, Armuzzi A, Acosta MB, et al. Third European evidence-based consensus on diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis. Part 1: Definitions, diagnosis, extra-intestinal manifestations, pregnancy, cancer surveillance, surgery, and ileo-anal pouch disorders. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11:649–70. doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx008.
Kelly JK, Gabos S. The pathogenesis of inflammatory polyps. Dis Colon Rectum. 1987;30:251–4. doi:10.1007/BF02556166.
Politis DS, Katsanos KH, Tsianos EV, Christodoulou DK. Pseudopolyps in inflammatory bowel diseases: Have we learned enough? World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:1541–51. doi:10.3748/wjg.v23.i9.1541.
Friedman SL, Sheppard D, Duffield JS, Violette S. Therapy for fibrotic diseases: nearing the starting line. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:167sr1. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3004700.
Rieder F, Fiocchi C. Intestinal fibrosis in IBD—a dynamic, multifactorial process. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;6:228–35. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2009.31.
Turner D, Ricciuto A, Lewis A, D'Amico F, Kotze PG, Yoshida EM, et al. STRIDE-II: An update on the selecting therapeutic targets in inflammatory bowel disease (STRIDE) initiative of the International Organization for the Study of IBD (IOIBD): Determining therapeutic goals for treat-to-target strategies in IBD. Gastroenterology. 2021;160:1570–83. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.12.031.
Schoepfer AM, Beglinger C, Straumann A, Safroneeva E, Romero Y, Armstrong D, et al. Ulcerative colitis: correlation of the Rachmilewitz endoscopic activity index with fecal calprotectin, clinical activity, C-reactive protein, and blood leukocytes. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2009;15:1851–8. doi:10.1002/ibd.20986.
Nakarai A, Kato J, Hiraoka S, Kuriyama M, Akita M, Hirakawa T, et al. Evaluation of mucosal healing of ulcerative colitis by a quantitative fecal immunochemical test. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:83–9. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.315.
Nakarai A, Kato J, Hiraoka S, Kuriyama M, Akita M, Hirakawa T, et al. Ulcerative colitis patients in clinical remission demonstrate correlations between fecal immunochemical test results, mucosal healing, and risk of relapse. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:5079–87. doi:10.3748/wjg.v22.i21.5079.
Takashima S, Kato J, Hiraoka S, Nakarai A, Takei D, Inokuchi T, et al. Evaluation of mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis by fecal calprotectin vs. fecal immunochemical test. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:873–80. doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.66.
Theede K, Holck S, Ibsen P, Kallemose T, Nordgaard-Lassen I, Nielsen AM. Fecal calprotectin predicts relapse and histological mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22:1042–8. doi:10.1097/MIB.0000000000000736.
Hiraoka S, Kato J, Nakarai A, Kuriyama M, Akita M, Hirakawa T, et al. Consecutive measurements by faecal immunochemical test in quiescent ulcerative colitis patients can detect clinical relapse. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10:687–94. doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw025.
Rachmilewitz D. Coated mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid) versus sulphasalazine in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis: a randomised trial. Br Med J. 1989;298:82–6. doi:10.1136/bmj.298.6666.82.
Schroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1625–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM198712243172603.
Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:452–8. doi:10.1038/bmt.2012.244.
Rieder F, de Bruyn JR, Pham BT, Remzi FH, Ferrante M, Oresland T, et al. Results of the 4th scientific workshop of the ECCO (Group II): markers of intestinal fibrosis in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8:1166–78. doi:10.1016/j.crohns.2014.03.009.
Gordon IO, Agrawal N, Goldblum JR, Rieder F, Fiocchi C. Fibrosis in ulcerative colitis: mechanisms, features, and consequences of a neglected problem. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20:2198–206. doi:10.1097/MIB.0000000000000080.
de Bruyn JR, Meijer SL, Wildenberg ME, Peppelenbosch MP, van den Brink GR, D'Haens GR, et al. Development of fibrosis in acute and longstanding ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2015;9:966–72. doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv133.
Loening-Baucke V, Metcalf AM, Shirazi S. Anorectal manometry in active and quiescent ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989;84:892–7.
Derkacz A, Olczyk P, Olczyk K, Komosinska-Vassev K. The role of extracellular matrix components in inflammatory bowel diseases. J Clin Med. 2021;10:1122. doi:10.3390/jcm10051122.
Nakashige TG, Zhang B, Krebs C, Nolan EM. Human calprotectin is an iron-sequestering host-defense protein. Nat Chem Biol. 2015;11:765–71. doi:10.1038/nchembio.1891.
D’Amico F, Nancey S, Danese S, Peyrin-Biroulet L. A practical guide for faecal calprotectin measurement: myths and realities. J Crohns Colitis. 2021;15:152–61. doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaa093.
Geboes KP, Cabooter L, Geboes K. Contribution of morphology for the comprehension of mechanisms of fibrosis in inflammatory enterocolitis. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2000;63:371–6.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
09 Sep, 2024
Reviews received at journal
03 Sep, 2024
Reviews received at journal
01 Sep, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
31 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
30 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
10 Aug, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
07 Aug, 2024
Editor invited by journal
07 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
07 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
07 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
06 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Effect of past extensive ulcers on fecal calprotectin in ulcerative colitis

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Background

Methods

Patients

Biomarker measurements

Study design

Statistical analysis

Results

Patient characteristics

Comparison of the non-PEU and PEU groups

Relationship between FC, endoscopic score, and clinical relapse

Association between clinical relapse predictions using biomarkers and PEUs

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1