Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 53, Issue 12


Biomarkers of inflammatory bowel disease: ready for prime time?

Mario Plebani / Daniela Basso / Giuseppe LippiORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9523-9054
Published Online: 2015-10-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-0918

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a multifactorial disorder which results, in genetically predisposed individuals, from a dysregulated immune response to environmental stimuli and to host intestinal microflora. IBD consists of two major clinical conditions, ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), which are characterized by appreciably distinctive pathogenetic and clinical features. The epidemiologic burden of IBD has increased considerably over the past decades, and recent data suggests that the overall prevalence may be as high as 200:100,000 persons for both UC and CD, with highest incidence being recorded in northern Europe [1]. A similar trend has also been described for pediatric IBD, now exhibiting a sex- and age-standardized incidence of 2.8 per 10 person-years for UC and 9.2 per 10 person-years for CD, respectively [2]. Even more importantly, patients with these conditions pose a substantial burden to society and healthcare systems, since a diagnosis of IBD is associated on average with 20 years of life lost (YLL) and 7.0 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) [3]. The clinical manifestations of IBD, which depend on disease type (UC or CD), on the area of the intestinal tract that has been involved, and on disease activity, may remain not specific for this condition for months (e.g. fatigue, anemia, weight loss, fever, diarrhea, constipation, abdominal cramps and pain, vomiting, fistulas and perianal disease). Occasionally additional extraintestinal manifestations may be present in up to 10%–20% of cases, and noticeably include arthritis, uveitis or liver disease.

According to the recent indications of the World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO), the diagnosis of IBD entails a combination of physical examination, patient history as well as a number of diagnostic tests including laboratory analyses, stool examination, endoscopy, biopsy and imaging studies [4]. More specifically, a detailed diagnostic strategy has been put forward, including (in sequential steps) physical examination, stool tests for infection and occult blood, complete blood count (CBC), serum albumin, ferritin, C-reactive protein (CRP), flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, abdominal ultrasound scan and computed tomography (or, when available, magnetic resonance imaging) scan of the abdomen [4]. Besides blood and stool testing, the diagnostic work-up thus entails techniques and procedures that are variably invasive (e.g. sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, biopsy), or which may be associated with substantial future health risks (e.g. those attributable to radiation exposure). The introduction of reliable and accurate laboratory tests that would contribute to limit the number of unnecessary further investigations should hence be regarded as a foremost perspective for safeguarding patients health and lowering healthcare expenditures. These considerations are even more relevant for IBD patients monitoring.

Among the various (noninvasive) biomarkers that have been proposed over the past few years, fecal calprotectin has gained a prominent role. A meta-analysis of eight studies totaling 1062 subjects recently concluded that a patient with a fecal calprotectin value ≤40 μg/g has a 1% probability of having IBD and a 84.1% probability of being healthy [5], thus exhibiting better diagnostic performance than C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and fecal lactoferrin for ruling out this condition. Despite some analytical and preanalytical drawbacks remain [6–9], encouraging data has also been recently published about the clinical efficacy of this biomarker for monitoring disease activity, response to treatment and relapse [10, 11].

In this issue of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Dumoulin et al. [12] describe the results of an interesting study about the measurement of leukocyte esterase activity in fecal extracts. The analytical performance of the technique was adequate for routine diagnostics, and the correlation with fecal calprotectin was found to be acceptable. Some advantages over fecal calprotectin testing were also emphasized, namely a higher sensitivity and a lower vulnerability against proteolysis, two aspects that seemingly make leukocyte esterase a highly stable, reliable and more affordable biomarker for diagnosis and monitoring of IDB.

Although further studies are needed to translate these preliminary results into clinical practice, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that prime time for noninvasive biomarkers of IBD may not be too late.

Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Financial support: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


  • 1.

    Cosnes J, Gower-Rousseau C, Seksik P, Cortot A. Epidemiology and natural history of inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1785–94.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Malmborg P, Grahnquist L, Lindholm J, Montgomery S, Hildebrand H. Increasing incidence of paediatric inflammatory bowel disease in northern Stockholm County, 2002-2007. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2013;57:29–34.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Struijk EA, May AM, Beulens JW, de Wit GA, Boer JM, Onland-Moret NC, et al. Development of methodology for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) calculation based on real-life data. PLoS One 2013;8:e74294.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO). World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guideline. Inflammatory bowel disease: a global perspective. Munich, Germany: World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO), 2009.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    Menees SB, Powell C, Kurlander J, Goel A, Chey WD. A meta-analysis of the utility of C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin to exclude inflammatory bowel disease in adults with IBS. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:444–54.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Coorevits L, Baert FJ, Vanpoucke HJ. Faecal calprotectin: comparative study of the Quantum Blue rapid test and an established ELISA method. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:825–31.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Oyaert M, Trouvé C, Baert F, De Smet D, Langlois M, Vanpoucke H. Comparison of two immunoassays for measurement of faecal calprotectin in detection of inflammatory bowel disease: (pre)-analytical and diagnostic performance characteristics. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:391–7.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Benahmed NA, Manéné D, Barbot-Trystram L, Kapel N. Evaluation of Calfast® immunochromatographic quantitative assay for the measurement of calprotectin in faeces. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:e143–5.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Dumoulin EN, Van Biervliet S, Langlois MR, Delanghe JR. Proteolysis is a confounding factor in the interpretation of faecal calprotectin. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:65–71.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Basso D, Zambon CF, Plebani M. Inflammatory bowel diseases: from pathogenesis to laboratory testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:471–81.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Tonutti E, Agostinis P, Bizzaro N. Inflammatory bowel diseases: where we are and where we should go. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:463–5.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Dumoulin EN, Van Biervliet S, De Vos M, Himpe J, Speeckaert MM, Delanghe JR. Faecal leukocyte esterase activity is an alternative biomarker in inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:2003–8.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Prof. Giuseppe Lippi, Section of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Verona, P.le LA Scuro 10, 37134 Verona, Italy, E-mail: , .

Published Online: 2015-10-14

Published in Print: 2015-11-01

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 53, Issue 12, Pages 1881–1882, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-0918.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in