Diagnostic value of calprotectin in irritable bowel syndrome and in inflammatory bowel disease

"Iuliu Haţieganu" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Medical Clinic, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Romanian journal of internal medicine = Revue roumaine de médecine interne 07/2012; 50(1):3-6.
Source: PubMed


The inflammation is an important component of the bowel wall structure. The amount of inflammation is gradually increased from normal state, to functional bowel disorders and to inflammatory bowel disease. Calprotectin is a recently established marker for intestinal inflammation. This paper surveys the present knowledge on fecal calprotectin testing as predictor of intestinal inflammation. We also show on a sample of patients that inflammation as tested with fecal calprotectin test may also be found, in lower degree, in irritable bowel syndrome. In inflammatory bowel disease, the calprotectin fecal test shows higher intensity values.

Download full-text


Available from: Piero Portincasa, Dec 31, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are two very common diseases in the general population. To date, there are no studies that highlight a direct link between NAFLD and IBS, but some recent reports have found an interesting correlation between obesity and IBS. A systematic PubMed database search was conducted highlighting that common mechanisms are involved in many of the local and systemic manifestations of NAFLD, leading to an increased cardiovascular risk, and IBS, leading to microbial dysbiosis, impaired intestinal barrier and altered intestinal motility. It is not known when considering local and systemic inflammation/immune system activation, which one has greater importance in NAFLD and IBS pathogenesis. Also, the nervous system is implicated. In fact, inflammation participates in the development of mood disorders, such as anxiety and depression, characteristics of obesity and consequently of NAFLD and, on the other hand, in intestinal hypersensitivity and dysmotility.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 09/2013; 19(33):5402-5420. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v19.i33.5402 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic abdominal pain accompanying intestinal inflammation emerges from the hyperresponsiveness of neuronal, immune and endocrine signaling pathways within the intestines, the peripheral and the central nervous system. In this article we review how the sensory nerve information from the healthy and the hypersensitive bowel is encoded and conveyed to the brain. The gut milieu is continuously monitored by intrinsic enteric afferents, and an extrinsic nervous network comprising vagal, pelvic and splanchnic afferents. The extrinsic afferents convey gut stimuli to second order neurons within the superficial spinal cord layers. These neurons cross the white commissure and ascend in the anterolateral quadrant and in the ipsilateral dorsal column of the dorsal horn to higher brain centers, mostly subserving regulatory functions. Within the supraspinal regions and the brainstem, pathways descend to modulate the sensory input. Because of this multiple level control, only a small proportion of gut signals actually reaches the level of consciousness to induce sensation or pain. In inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients, however, long-term neuroplastic changes have occurred in the brain-gut axis which results in chronic abdominal pain. This sensitization may be driven on the one hand by peripheral mechanisms within the intestinal wall which encompasses an interplay between immunocytes, enterochromaffin cells, resident macrophages, neurons and smooth muscles. On the other hand, neuronal synaptic changes along with increased neurotransmitter release in the spinal cord and brain leads to a state of central wind-up. Also life factors such as but not limited to inflammation and stress contribute to hypersensitivity. All together, the degree to which each of these mechanisms contribute to hypersensitivity in IBD and IBS might be disease- and even patient-dependent. Mapping of sensitization throughout animal and human studies may significantly improve our understanding of sensitization in IBD and IBS. On the long run, this knowledge can be put forward in potential therapeutic targets for abdominal pain in these conditions.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 01/2014; 20(4):1005-1020. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v20.i4.1005 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The presence of a certain degree of inflammation in the gut wall is now accepted in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Fecal calprotectin is considered to be a reliable test for detecting intestinal inflammation. Our aim was to assess the presence of inflammation in postinfectious IBS (PI-IBS), compared with non-postinfectious IBS (NPI-IBS). A secondary objective was to determine the usefulness of a rapid fecal calprotectin test in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). This was a cross-sectional study. Patients with IBS and IBD at a single tertiary gastroenterology center were prospectively included in this study. 116 patients with Rome III IBS score (76 females; 48 ± 12 years) were investigated; 24 patients (15 females) had PI-IBS. Intestinal inflammation was assessed using the semiquantitative fecal calprotectin test. The results were expressed as T1, T2 or T3 according to the severity of inflammation (< 15 μg/g; 15-60 μg/g; > 60 μg/g). Using the same test, we evaluated 20 patients with IBD (12 males; 47 ± 13 years). None of the patients with IBS had a T2 or T3 positive test. Among PI-IBS patients, 33% had a T1 positive test. Among NPI-IBS patients, 9.8% had a T1 positive test, which was significantly different to PI-IBS. The calprotectin test was positive in all IBD patients: 80% with T3, 10% with T2 and 10% with T1. Using a semiquantitative test for fecal calprotectin, positive tests were more frequent in PI-IBS patients than in NPI-IBS patients.
    São Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina 12/2014; DOI:10.1590/1516-3180.2014.8000815 · 0.72 Impact Factor
Show more