OC-048 Does the performance of faecal calprotectin testing in primary care differentiate patients with inflammatory bowel disease?: Abstract OC-048 Table 1

Gut ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A25.1-A25
Author(s):  
S Conroy ◽  
M Hale ◽  
S Cross ◽  
K Swallow ◽  
R Sidhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

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 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 The Association of Introducing a Faecal Calprotectin Testing Pathway for Suspected Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Primary Care and Time to Diagnosis or Treatment

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-199
Author(s):  
Amy Hicks ◽  
P. John Hamlin ◽  
Christian P. Selinger
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Diagnosis And Treatment ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Cancer Pathways ◽  
Time To Diagnosis ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Irritable Bowel

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Primary care faecal calprotectin (FC) was introduced in Leeds in 2014 to distinguish inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from irritable bowel syndrome and with the hope that it may reduce time to IBD diagnosis and treatment. This study examines the association of FC with referral routes, time to diagnosis, and time to treatment. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> All patients newly referred to IBD clinics in 2013 and 2016 were studied. Data on referral routes and dates, FC, date of first treatment, and proxy outcomes for disease severity were collected. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In 248 patients, there were no differences between 2013 and 2016 cohorts regarding baseline data and disease severity. The number of direct referrals to gastroenterology rose from 3% (2013) to 17% (2016), whilst 10% were diagnosed during emergency admissions. Referrals via suspected cancer pathways remained high (38% in 2013, 28% in 2016), whilst many had initial investigations at independent centres (16% in 2013, 24% in 2016). Time from referral to diagnosis was similar between 2013 (0.77 month) and 2016 (1.10 months, <i>p</i> = 0.2). A total of 48 (33.3%) patients had FC checked prior to referral, and 37.5% of these were referred directly to gastroenterology. Time from diagnosis to treatment reduced from 1.37 months (2013) to 0.72 month (2016, <i>p</i> = 0.01). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Patients present via a multitude of referral pathways, but FC was associated with increased direct referrals to gastroenterology. We found a variation in time to diagnosis and treatment depending on referral routes. Further work is required to ensure patients with suspected IBD get referred to IBD services in a timely manner.

Primary care faecal calprotectin testing in children with suspected inflammatory bowel disease: a diagnostic accuracy study

2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (10) ◽  
pp. 957-963
Author(s):  
Gareth J Walker ◽  
Neil Chanchlani ◽  
Amanda Thomas ◽  
Simeng Lin ◽  
Lucy Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Healthcare Utilisation ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of calprotectin to diagnose inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in children in whom general practitioners (GPs) suspected IBD.DesignProspective observational cohort study of a new calprotectin-based primary care referral pathway.Setting48 GP practices and gastroenterology secondary care services at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust in the South-West of England, UK.Patients195 children aged between 4 and 18 years referred on the pathway between January 2014 and August 2017 for investigation of gastrointestinal symptoms were included.InterventionsPrimary-care-driven faecal calprotectin testing. Primary and secondary care records over 12 months from the point of calprotectin testing were used as the reference standard.Main outcome measuresDiagnostic accuracy of calprotectin testing to detect IBD.Results7% (13/195) tested patients were diagnosed with IBD. Using our prespecified cut-off of 100 µg/g, calprotectin had a diagnostic accuracy of 91% (95% CI 86% to 95%) with a sensitivity for distinguishing IBD from non-IBD of 100% (95% CI 75% to 100%), a specificity of 91% (95% CI 85% to 94%), a positive predictive value of 43% (95% CI 25% to 63%) and a negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%). Calprotectin testing had no effect on the time to diagnosis, but a negative test contributed to saved referrals and was associated with fewer diagnostic tests in secondary care.ConclusionsCalprotectin testing of children with suspected IBD in primary care accurately distinguishes IBD from a functional gut disorder, reduces secondary care referrals and associated diagnostic healthcare utilisation.

scholarly journals Impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, assessment and management of children with inflammatory bowel disease in the UK: implications for practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000786
Author(s):  
Abbie Maclean ◽  
James J Ashton ◽  
Vikki Garrick ◽  
R Mark Beattie ◽  
Richard Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Delayed Diagnosis ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Paediatric Patients ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Working Practices ◽  
The Impact

The assessment and management of patients with known, or suspected, paediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) has been hugely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although current evidence of the impact of COVID-19 infection in children with PIBD has provided a degree of reassurance, there continues to be the potential for significant secondary harm caused by the changes to normal working practices and reorganisation of services.Disruption to the normal running of diagnostic and assessment procedures, such as endoscopy, has resulted in the potential for secondary harm to patients including delayed diagnosis and delay in treatment. Difficult management decisions have been made in order to minimise COVID-19 risk for this patient group while avoiding harm. Initiating and continuing immunosuppressive and biological therapies in the absence of normal surveillance and diagnostic procedures have posed many challenges.Despite this, changes to working practices, including virtual clinic appointments, home faecal calprotectin testing kits and continued intensive support from clinical nurse specialists and other members of the multidisciplinary team, have resulted in patients still receiving a high standard of care, with those who require face-to-face intervention being highlighted.These changes have the potential to revolutionise the way in which patients receive routine care in the future, with the inclusion of telemedicine increasingly attractive for stable patients. There is also the need to use lessons learnt from this pandemic to plan for a possible second wave, or future pandemics as well as implementing some permanent changes to normal working practices.In this review, we describe the diagnosis, management and direct impact of COVID-19 in paediatric patients with IBD. We summarise the guidance and describe the implemented changes, evolving evidence and the implications of this virus on paediatric patients with IBD and working practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document