Fecal Lactoferrin and Other Putative Fecal Biomarkers in Crohn’s Disease: Do They Still Have a Potential Clinical Role?

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The need for noninvasive markers of disease activity is mandatory in the assessment of Crohn’s disease (CD). The most widely fecal biomarker in CD, despite several limits, is fecal calprotectin. This review aims to elucidate the role, if any, of all other fecal biomarkers, as alternative tools for assessing clinical and endoscopic disease activity, and predict capsule endoscopy findings, response to therapy, disease relapse, and postoperative recurrence. These fecal biomarkers included lactoferrin, S100A12, high mobility group box 1, neopterin, polymorphonuclear neutrophil elastase, fecal hemoglobin, alpha1-antitrypsin, lysozyme, human beta-defensin-2, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, matrix metalloproteinase-9, chitinase 3-like-1, M2-pyruvate kinase, myeloperoxidase, and eosinophil proteins. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic electronic search in the medical literature was performed up to April 2020. Seventy eligible studies were identified out of 859 citations. Data were grouped according to the assessment of clinical and endoscopic disease activity, capsule endoscopy findings, response to therapy, prediction of relapse, and postoperative recurrence. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The overall correlation between lactoferrin and clinical indexes is poor, while performance is good with endoscopic scores. Lactoferrin seems to represent a reasonably good surrogate marker of response to therapy and to be potentially useful in identifying patients at high risk for endoscopic relapse or postoperative recurrence. The evaluation of the performance of all other fecal markers is limited by the lack of adequate data. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> None of the fecal markers so far represents an acceptable alternative to calprotectin in clinical practice. Fecal lactoferrin is the only possible exception, but a more extensive investigation is still required.

Extent of disease affects the usefulness of fecal biomarkers in ulcerative colitis

Background Fecal biomarkers are considered to be useful surrogate markers for endoscopic activity. Given the mechanisms of fecal biomarkers, we hypothesized that the extent of ulcerative colitis (UC; pancolitis, left-sided colitis, and proctitis) could affect the usefulness of fecal biomarkers for assessing endoscopic and clinical disease activity; however, few studies have evaluated the utility of fecal biomarkers in the disease extent of UC. Methods Fecal calprotectin, a fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin, and fecal lactoferrin were used as fecal biomarkers. UC patients, who underwent colonoscopy within 30 days of the fecal biomarker test, participated in this observational study. Clinical and endoscopic disease activity was assessed using the Lichtiger Index and Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES), respectively. Results A total of 162 colonoscopies were performed on 133 UC patients. A correlation analysis between each biomarker and the MES for each disease-extent subgroup showed a decreased correlation in the proctitis compared with the other groups. With the exception of proctitis, it was possible to distinguish between MES 0 and MES ≥ 1 with high area-under-the-curve values for fecal calprotectin and fecal lactoferrin. The fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin was superior at discriminating MES 0 for proctitis. Conclusions For the practical application of fecal biomarkers for UC patients, it is necessary to consider disease extent before use. In particular, patients with proctitis exhibit a low correlation between stool biomarkers and endoscopic findings. The usefulness of these biomarkers for endoscopic remission is reduced, except for the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin.

Fecal lactoferrin predicts primary non-response to biologic agents in inflammatory bowel disease

Introduction: Fecal Lactoferrin (FL) is a timely and accurate marker of inflammation in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD). Aim of this study was to verify whether FL can predict primary non-response (PNR) to biologic agents during induction. Methods: Retrospective outcome review in 27 patients (13 with CD and 14 with UC) tested for baseline FL and re-tested within a week after the first and second induction doses. Clinical/biochemical outcomes were evaluated at end of induction and at follow up (3-24 months). Results: Compared to baseline, changes of the Harvey-Bradshaw (CD) and Partial Mayo Scoring (UC) indices at end of induction separated responders (18/27 or 67%) from non-responders (9/17 or 33%). In all patients the initial FL value at induction decreased compared to baseline, continuing to decrease after the following dose in clinical responders while bouncing back in the others. Models targeting the two consecutively decreased FL values or the second FL value compared to baseline or the second FL value compared to the first were able to accurately predict response at end of induction. Follow-up assessment confirmed clinical remission in initial responders (with FL values reduced on the average by 94±10% compared to baseline). Conclusions: In CD and UC patients during induction with biologic agents early FL measurements accurately separate clinical responders from those experiencing PNR. The method described here offers several potential advantages over other strategies to assess and manage these patients.

Timely Monitoring of Inflammation by Fecal Lactoferrin Rapidly Predicts Therapeutic Response in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Background Fecal lactoferrin (FL) levels may mirror drug-induced changes in inflammation in ulcerative colitis and Crohn disease in a timely way and could be used to assess loss of response (LOR) to biologics. Methods This study is a retrospective outcome review in 61 patients on adalimumab, infliximab, or vedolizumab managed in our center and followed for 6 to 24 months. Patients were 1) in clinical remission or 2) were experiencing possible LOR. Results For group 1, in 71% of 31 patients, FL slowly increased during the therapeutic interval (R2 = 0.769; P &lt; 0.001), thus reflecting increasing inflammation as drug concentrations decreased. In the remaining patients, FL was undetectable throughout the therapeutic interval because of a stronger suppression of inflammation. For group 2, in 30 patients negative for infections, FL levels measured 1 to 3 days after infusion/injection compared to preadministration values either increased (nonresponders)—in these patients the medication was switched to another class; partially decreased (partial responders)—the therapeutic interval was shortened; or were normal throughout (responders)—causes for symptoms unrelated to disease activity were found for all. After FL-based management, 3-month standardized clinical scores were normalized in both partial responders (0.58 ± 0.21 vs 0.13 ± 0.09; P &lt; 0.001) and nonresponders (0.81 ± 0.17 vs 0.12 ± 0.08; P &lt; 0.001), and FL levels dropped by up to 99%. Conclusions Levels of FL reflect drug-induced changes in mucosal inflammation in a timely way, thus enabling rapid assessment of therapeutic response in patients with ulcerative colitis and with Crohn disease. In patients with suspected LOR, FL levels before and after infusion/injection accurately separated responders, partial responders, and nonresponders. The strategy proposed here is simple, accurate, and easily applicable to clinical practice.

EFFECT OF OZANIMOD ON FECAL CALPROTECTIN AND FECAL LACTOFERRIN, BIOMARKERS OF INTESTINAL INFLAMMATION, IN THE PHASE 2 TOUCHSTONE STUDY OF PATIENTS WITH MODERATE-TO-SEVERE ULCERATIVE COLITIS

Introduction Efficacy and safety of ozanimod, an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator selectively targeting S1P1 and S1P5, was previously demonstrated in the double-blind phase 2 TOUCHSTONE study (NCT01647516) in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Here we report the effect of ozanimod on levels of fecal calprotectin (FCP) and fecal lactoferrin (FLF), two markers of intestinal inflammation. Methods Patients in TOUCHSTONE were randomized 1:1:1 to once daily oral ozanimod HCl 0.5 mg (equivalent to ozanimod 0.46 mg), ozanimod HCl 1.0 mg (equivalent to ozanimod 0.92 mg), or placebo for 8 weeks; responders at week 8 (based upon Mayo score) entered a maintenance phase through week 32. Stool collection occurred at baseline and weeks 8 and 32 to measure levels of FCP and FLF. Results A total of 197 patients were randomized and received treatment (n=65, placebo; n=65, ozanimod 0.5 mg; n=67, ozanimod 1 mg). Median baseline levels of FCP were 1272, 1477, and 1238 μg/g, respectively; baseline FCP levels were not associated with baseline Mayo score. Median baseline levels of FLF were 29.0, 30.6, and 29.9 μg/g, respectively; baseline FLF was related to week 8 Mayo score even after adjusting for baseline Mayo score. At week 8, FCP levels declined across treatment groups (median percent change from baseline, -53.4, -68.7, and -70.0 in placebo, ozanimod 0.5 mg and 1 mg groups, respectively); declines in FCP were maintained at week 32 (median percent change from baseline, -42.3, -72.6, and -80.6, respectively). At week 8, declines in FCP were greater in patients achieving clinical response (based on Mayo score) than in non-responders on ozanimod 1 mg. Declines in FCP at week 8 were also greater in patients achieving clinical remission than in those who did not, with greater declines with ozanimod 1 mg relative to 0.5 mg. FLF levels declined at weeks 8 and 32 across treatment groups, with greater changes in the ozanimod 1 mg group vs placebo (median percent change from baseline, week 8: -35.7, -61.0, and -84.7, respectively; week 32: -60.2, -62.5, -85.3, respectively, for placebo, ozanimod 0.5 mg, and ozanimod 1 mg). Reductions in FLF at week 8 were greater for treatment responders vs non-responders and for those achieving vs not achieving clinical remission in the ozanimod 1 mg group. Conclusion In TOUCHSTONE, treatment with ozanimod was associated with declines in FCP levels in treatment responders (for the 1 mg dose group) or those who achieved clinical remission (both doses). Ozanimod 1 mg was also associated with declines in FLF for treatment responders and those achieving remission.

Practical Significance of Inflammatory Markers for Infectious Secretary Diarrhea in Children

In this article, the practical significance of determining markers of inflammation (blood procalcitonin, fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin) for distinguishing infectious secretory from infectious invasive diarrhea, as well as from functional diarrhea of non-infectious genesis, is given in the article. A survey was conducted of 54 children aged 0 to 3 years hospitalized in an infectious disease’s hospital with secretory viral diarrhea (rotavirus, astro-, adeno-, noro-, and enterovirus), for the period 2019–2020.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor–Mediated Diarrhea and Colitis: A Clinical Review

Immune-mediated diarrhea and colitis (IMDC) is among the most common immune-related adverse events in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Many factors will affect the risk of IMDC, including the type of ICI used, the type of underlying cancer, and patient characteristics. A recent study showed that preexisting inflammatory bowel disease significantly increases the risk of diarrhea and colitis with ICI treatment. In terms of management, early endoscopic evaluation improves clinical outcome by identifying high-risk patients who will benefit from early add-on immunosuppressants. Inflammatory markers, including fecal lactoferrin and calprotectin, are good screening tools to predict which patients are at risk for colitis. Calprotectin especially is associated with colitis outcome and can be used as a surrogate marker to follow treatment response. Corticosteroids remain the first-line medical treatment of IMDC management, and add-on therapy with vedolizumab or infliximab should be considered in selected patients. Fecal microbiota transplantation may be considered in refractory cases. The decision to resume ICI should be decided by balancing the risk of recurrent IMDC and the likelihood of benefiting from further ICI treatment. There is no clear evidence about whether the use of immunosuppressants will result in a worse cancer outcome. With emerging evidence, our understanding and management strategies are likely to evolve in the future.