scholarly journals Faecal haemoglobin and faecal calprotectin as indicators of bowel disease in patients presenting to primary care with bowel symptoms

Gut ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (9) ◽  
pp. 1463-1469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Mowat ◽  
Jayne Digby ◽  
Judith A Strachan ◽  
Robyn Wilson ◽  
Francis A Carey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Bowel Symptoms

Faecal calprotectin is not necessarily required as a screen for significant bowel disease in primary care

2021 ◽  
pp. 000456322110634
Author(s):  
Matthew Malcolm Andrew Waite ◽  
Louise Langmead ◽  
Ruth M Ayling
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Immunochemical Test ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Clinical Records ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Disease Specific ◽  
Rule Out

Objective NICE recommends measurement of faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) using faecal immunochemical test (FIT) when colorectal cancer is suspected and calprotectin (f-Cal) in the context of inflammatory bowel disease, though neither is disease specific. During the COVID-19 pandemic, f-Hb has been a requirement prior to referral for endoscopy in England; f-Cal is often performed simultaneously. The aim of this study was to investigate test performance of both tests for significant bowel disease in those patients referred. Design All adult patients with simultaneous measurements of f-Hb and f-Cal between April 2019 and September 2020 were included. For those referred, outcomes were determined from clinical records. Results 650 patients with simultaneous samples for f-Hb an f-Cal were managed in Primary Care; 319 patients were referred to hospital; SBD was found in 32 (10.0%) (CRC 5, high risk adenomas 5, IBD 22). At a cut-off of 10 μg/g for f-Hb and 200 μg/g for f-Cal, the sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value for diagnosis of SBD were 84.4%, 58.2% and 96.7% and 68.8%, 89.6% and 95.7%, respectively. Performance of both tests would have enabled diagnosis of two more cases of significant, but non-malignant, bowel disease but required over 4% more referrals for investigation. Conclusion Use of FIT has become established to assist prioritisation of patients for referral from Primary Care. Whilst introduced specifically for CRC, FIT performs well as a rule out for IBD in Primary Care and the use of f-Cal is not required.

scholarly journals Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e027428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karoline Freeman ◽  
Brian H Willis ◽  
Hannah Fraser ◽  
Sian Taylor-Phillips ◽  
Aileen Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

ObjectiveTest accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in primary care is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the test accuracy of FC testing in primary care and compare it to secondary care estimates for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy using a bivariate random effects model. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until 31 May 2017 and included studies from auto alerts up until 31 January 2018. Eligible studies measured FC levels in stool samples to detect IBD in adult patients with chronic (at least 6–8 weeks) abdominal symptoms in primary or secondary care. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. We followed the protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD 42012003287.Results38 out of 2168 studies were eligible including five from primary care. Comparison of test accuracy by setting was precluded by extensive heterogeneity. Overall, summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were not recorded. At a threshold of 50 µg/g, sensitivity from separate meta-analysis of four assay types ranged from 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.92) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.94). Across three different definitions of disease, sensitivity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) to 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) to 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). Sensitivity appears to be lower in primary care and is further reduced at a revised threshold of 100 µg/g.ConclusionsConclusive estimates of sensitivity and specificity of FC testing in primary care for the detection of IBD are still missing. There is insufficient evidence in the published literature to support the decision to introduce FC testing in primary care. Studies evaluating FC testing in an appropriate primary care setting are needed.

scholarly journals Impact of introducing a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin into primary care on the outcome of patients with new bowel symptoms: a prospective cohort study

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Mowat ◽  
Jayne Digby ◽  
Judith A Strachan ◽  
Rebecca McCann ◽  
Christopher Hall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Record Linkage ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Faecal Immunochemical Test ◽  
Bowel Symptoms ◽  
Immunochemical Test

ObjectiveTo determine whether a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) can be safely implemented in primary care as a rule-out test for significant bowel disease (SBD) (colorectal cancer (CRC), higher risk adenoma (HRA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)) when used as an adjunct to the clinical assessment of new bowel symptoms.DesignSingle-centre prospective cohort study of all patients who attended primary care and submitted a FIT in the first calendar year of the service beginning December 2015. f-Hb was estimated using HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex) with a clinical cut-off of ≥10 µg Hb/g faeces. Incident cases of CRC were verified via anonymised record linkage to the Scottish Cancer Registry.Results5422 patients submitted 5660 FIT specimens, of which 5372 were analysed (positivity: 21.9%). 2848 patients were referred immediately to secondary care and three with f-Hb <10 µg/g presented acutely within days with obstructing CRC. 1447 completed colonoscopy in whom overall prevalence of SBD was 20.5% (95 CRC (6.6%), 133 HRA (9.2%) and 68 IBD (4.7%)); 6.6% in patients with f-Hb <10 µg/g vs 32.3% in patients with f-Hb ≥10 µg/g. One CRC was detected at CT colonoscopy. 2521 patients were not immediately referred (95.3% had f-Hb <10 µg/g) of which four (0.2%) later developed CRC. Record linkage identified no additional CRC cases within a follow-up period of 23–35 months.ConclusionIn primary care, measurement of f-Hb, in conjunction with clinical assessment, can safely and objectively determine a patient’s risk of SBD.

scholarly journals Unrestricted faecal calprotectin testing performs poorly in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in patients in primary care

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 316-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Conroy ◽  
Melissa F Hale ◽  
Simon S Cross ◽  
Kirsty Swallow ◽  
Reena H Sidhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Irritable Bowel ◽  
Low Sensitivity ◽  
Single Laboratory

BackgroundFaecal calprotectin (FC) measurement distinguishes patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from those with irritable bowel syndrome but evidence of its performance in primary care is limited.AimsTo assess the yield of IBD from FC testing in primary care.MethodsRetrospective review of hospital records to assess the outcome following FC testing in primary care. Investigations for all patients undergoing FC testing in a single laboratory for 6 months from 1 October 2013 to 28 February 2014 were reviewed.Results410 patients (162 male; median age 42; range 16–91) were included. FC>50 µg/g was considered positive (FC+). 148/410 (36.1%; median age 44 (17–91)) were FC+ (median FC 116.5 µg/g (51–1770)). 122/148 FC-positive patients (82.4%) underwent further investigation. 97 (65.5%) underwent lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE), of which 7 (7.2%) had IBD. 49/262 (18.7%) FC-negative (FC−) patients (FC ≤50 µg/g) (median age 47 (19–76)) also underwent LGIE, of whom 3 (6.1%) had IBD.IBD was diagnosed in 11/410 (2.7%; 4 ulcerative colitis, 3 Crohn’s disease, 4 microscopic colitis). 8/11 were FC+ (range 67–1170) and 3 FC−. At a 50 µg/g threshold, sensitivity for detecting IBD was 72.7%, specificity 64.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) 5.41% and negative predictive value 98.9%. Increasing the threshold to 100 µg/g reduced the sensitivity of the test for detecting IBD to 54.6%.ConclusionsFC testing in primary care has low sensitivity and specificity with poor PPV for diagnosing IBD. Its use needs to be directed to those with a higher pretest probability of disease. Local services and laboratories should advise general practitioners accordingly.

scholarly journals Appraisal of the faecal haemoglobin, age and sex test (FAST) score in assessment of patients with lower bowel symptoms: an observational study

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayne Digby ◽  
Judith A. Strachan ◽  
Craig Mowat ◽  
Robert J. C. Steele ◽  
Callum G. Fraser
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Advanced Adenoma ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
First Year ◽  
Lower Bowel ◽  
Bowel Symptoms ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Abstract Background Many patients present in primary care with lower bowel symptoms, but significant bowel disease (SBD), comprising colorectal cancer (CRC), advanced adenoma (AA), or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), is uncommon. Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin (FIT), which examine faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb), assist in deciding who would benefit from colonoscopy. Incorporation of additional variables in an individual risk-score might improve this approach. We investigated if the published f-Hb, age and sex test score (FAST score) added value. Methods Data from the first year of routine use of FIT in primary care in one NHS Board in Scotland were examined: f-Hb was estimated using one HM-JACKarc FIT system (Kyowa Medex Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) with a cut-off for positivity ≥10 μg Hb/g faeces. 5660 specimens were received for analysis in the first year. 4072 patients were referred to secondary care: 2881 (70.6%) of these had returned a FIT specimen. Of those referred, 1447 had colonoscopy data as well as the f-Hb result (group A): 2521 patients, also with f-Hb, were not immediately referred (group B). The FAST score was assessed in both groups. Results 1196 (41.7%) of patients who returned a specimen for FIT analysis had f-Hb ≥10 μg Hb/g faeces. In group A, 252 of 296 (85.1%) with SBD had f-Hb > 10 μg Hb/g faeces, as did 528 of 1151 (45.8%) without SBD. Using a FAST score > 2.12, which gives high clinical sensitivity for CRC, only 1143 would have been referred for colonoscopy (21.0% reduction in demand): 286 of 296 (96.6%) with SBD had a positive FAST score, as did 857 of 1151 (74.5%) without SBD. However, one CRC, five AA and four IBD would have been missed. In group B, although 95.2% had f-Hb < 10 μg Hb/g faeces, 1371 (53.7%) had FAST score ≥ 2.12: clinical rationale led to only 122 of group B completing subsequent bowel investigations: a FAST score > 2.12 was found in 13 of 15 (86.7%) with SBD. Conclusions The performance characteristics of the FAST score did not seem to enhance the utility of f-Hb alone. Locally-derived formulae might confer desired benefits.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document