Cynthia E Cherfane1, Luke Gessel, Dominic Cirillo, Miriam B Zimmerman, Steven Polyak. 1. *Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa; †Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and ‡Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current biomarkers in ulcerative colitis (UC) are limited by their performance, cost, and limited availability in daily practice. This study examined alterations in the leukocyte profiles as biomarkers of UC activity, including the effects of age, gender, and medications. METHODS: Case-control study that included 110 UC subjects, 75 subjects with Clostridium difficile infection, and 75 non-inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) subjects, randomly selected from a single-institution IBD database. Mean values of neutrophils (N), lymphocytes (L), monocytes (M) and their ratios were compared between groups. Receiver operator curve analyses assessed the performance of each biomarker in discriminating disease states. Subgroup analyses examined leukocytes profiles with endoscopic activity. RESULTS:Elevated monocyte counts and decreased L/M values significantly differed between subjects with active UC and UC in remission and performed better than the other leukocyte profiles. A monocyte count of 483 and L/M ratio of 3.1 were 60% sensitive and had a specificity of 61% and 53%, respectively for active UC. Monocyte count >860 and L/M value <1.6 had a 75% positive predictive value for UC activity. Those markers also correlated with endoscopically active disease. L/M and N/L values performed best at differentiating active UC from non-IBD controls, whereas N/L and N values performed best at differentiating from C. difficile controls. CONCLUSIONS: Monocytosis and a low L/M ratio might be effective, readily available, and low-cost biomarkers to identify disease activity in UC patients. N/L values were more effective in distinguishing active UC patients from patients without IBD and those with C. difficile infection.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Current biomarkers in ulcerative colitis (UC) are limited by their performance, cost, and limited availability in daily practice. This study examined alterations in the leukocyte profiles as biomarkers of UC activity, including the effects of age, gender, and medications. METHODS: Case-control study that included 110 UC subjects, 75 subjects with Clostridium difficileinfection, and 75 non-inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) subjects, randomly selected from a single-institution IBD database. Mean values of neutrophils (N), lymphocytes (L), monocytes (M) and their ratios were compared between groups. Receiver operator curve analyses assessed the performance of each biomarker in discriminating disease states. Subgroup analyses examined leukocytes profiles with endoscopic activity. RESULTS: Elevated monocyte counts and decreased L/M values significantly differed between subjects with active UC and UC in remission and performed better than the other leukocyte profiles. A monocyte count of 483 and L/M ratio of 3.1 were 60% sensitive and had a specificity of 61% and 53%, respectively for active UC. Monocyte count >860 and L/M value <1.6 had a 75% positive predictive value for UC activity. Those markers also correlated with endoscopically active disease. L/M and N/L values performed best at differentiating active UC from non-IBD controls, whereas N/L and N values performed best at differentiating from C. difficile controls. CONCLUSIONS: Monocytosis and a low L/M ratio might be effective, readily available, and low-cost biomarkers to identify disease activity in UC patients. N/L values were more effective in distinguishing active UC patients from patients without IBD and those with C. difficileinfection.
Authors: Jost Langhorst; Sigrid Elsenbruch; Julia Koelzer; Andreas Rueffer; Andreas Michalsen; Gustav J Dobos Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-10-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: William A Faubion; Joel G Fletcher; Sharon O'Byrne; Brian G Feagan; Willem Js de Villiers; Bruce Salzberg; Scott Plevy; Deborah D Proctor; John F Valentine; Peter D Higgins; Jeffrey M Harris; Lauri Diehl; Lilyan Wright; Gaik Wei Tew; Diana Luca; Karen Basu; Mary E Keir Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Alain M Schoepfer; Christoph Beglinger; Alex Straumann; Ekaterina Safroneeva; Yvonne Romero; David Armstrong; Carsten Schmidt; Michael Trummler; Valérie Pittet; Stephan R Vavricka Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: James D Lewis; Shaokun Chuai; Lisa Nessel; Gary R Lichtenstein; Faten N Aberra; Jonas H Ellenberg Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: S E Lester; S M Proudman; A T Y Lee; C A Hall; L McWilliams; M J James; L G Cleland Journal: Intern Med J Date: 2008-06-28 Impact factor: 2.048
Authors: Aleksandra Glapa-Nowak; Mariusz Szczepanik; Aleksandra Banaszkiewicz; Jarosław Kwiecień; Anna Szaflarska-Popławska; Urszula Grzybowska-Chlebowczyk; Marcin Osiecki; Jarosław Kierkuś; Marcin Dziekiewicz; Jarosław Walkowiak Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2022-09-14
Authors: Clark D Russell; Arun Parajuli; Hugo J Gale; Naomi S Bulteel; Philipp Schuetz; Cornelis P C de Jager; Anne J M Loonen; Georgios I Merekoulias; J Kenneth Baillie Journal: J Infect Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 6.072
Authors: Alyce Anderson; Cynthia Cherfane; Benjamin Click; Claudia Ramos-Rivers; Ioannis E Koutroubakis; Jana G Hashash; Dmitriy Babichenko; Gong Tang; Michael Dunn; Arthur Barrie; Siobhan Proksell; Jeffrey Dueker; Elyse Johnston; Marc Schwartz; David G Binion Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 5.325