Next Article in Journal
Effects of Early Initiation of Polymyxin B Hemoperfusion Therapy in Patients with Cancer with Refractory Septic Shock
Next Article in Special Issue
Management of Post-Operative Crohn’s Disease: Knowns and Unknowns
Previous Article in Journal
Creatinine-Based Definition of Kidney Disease in the Charlson Comorbidity Index May Underestimate Prognosis in Males Compared to an Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Definition
Previous Article in Special Issue
Predictors of Efficacy of Janus Kinase Inhibitors in Patients Affected by Ulcerative Colitis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/jcm13041008
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Current Approaches for Monitoring of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Narrative Review

by
Alessandro Vitello
1,
Marcello Maida
1,2,
Endrit Shahini
3,
Fabio Salvatore Macaluso
4,
Ambrogio Orlando
4,
Mauro Grova
4,
Daryl Ramai
5,
Gaetano Serviddio
6 and
Antonio Facciorusso
6,*
1
Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, S. Elia Hospital, 93100 Caltanissetta, Italy
2
Department of Medicine and Surgery, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Enna ‘Kore’, 94100 Enna, Italy
3
Gastroenterology Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology-IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, 70013 Castellana Grotte, Italy
4
Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, Department of Medicine, A.O.O.R. “Villa Sofia-Cervello” Hospital, 90146 Palermo, Italy
5
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA
6
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(4), 1008; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13041008
Submission received: 21 January 2024 / Revised: 5 February 2024 / Accepted: 7 February 2024 / Published: 9 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Optimizing Present and Future Therapeutic Choices for Treatment and Management of Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) require proactive monitoring both during the active phase to evaluate therapeutic response and during the remission phase to evaluate relapse or colorectal cancer surveillance. However, monitoring may vary between patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), with distinct tools and intervals. Methods: This narrative review aims to focus on modern approaches to IBD monitoring, considering international guidelines and expert consensus. Results: The most recent European diagnostic guidelines advocate a combination of clinical, laboratory, endoscopic, and radiological parameters to evaluate the disease course of patients with IBD. Unfortunately, the conventional symptom-based therapeutic approach does not improve long-term outcomes and there is no single ideal biomarker available. Endoscopy plays a key role in evaluating response to therapy as well as monitoring disease activity. Recently, bedside intestinal ultrasound (IUS) has gained increasing interest and diffusion as it appears to offer several advantages including the monitoring of therapeutic response. Conclusion: In light of growing clinical advances, we present a schematic evidence-based monitoring algorithm that can be easily applied in clinical practice which combines all major monitoring modalities, including noninvasive tools such as IUS and video-capsule endoscopy.

1. Introduction

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) involve complex chronic conditions that lead to long-term and/or permanent damage if not treated effectively [1]. Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are the two main forms of IBD, both characterized by immune-mediated inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract [1]. It is crucial to receive timely and effective treatment to prevent the progression of these diseases and avoid irreparable structural and functional damage [2,3,4]. Despite the growing number of drugs available for treating IBD, their long-term effectiveness remains suboptimal. Approximately one-third of IBD patients do not respond to initial therapies, while another third experiences incomplete response or lose their response over time [5]. While the therapeutic arsenal for IBD is constantly expanding, there is still a need for more effective treatments to improve patient outcomes [5]. Proactive monitoring is essential for IBD patients, both during the active phase to evaluate therapeutic response, and during remission to evaluate relapse or colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance [6,7,8,9,10]. However, monitoring procedures can vary between patients with UC and CD, with different tools and time points used. The most recent ECCO-ESGAR diagnostic guidelines advocate a combination of clinical, laboratory, endoscopic, and radiological parameters to assess the success of IBD treatment(s) (Figure 1) [11,12].

2. Relevant Sections

2.1. Clinical Parameters

The initial approach for a patient with IBD is primarily clinical, and there are various clinical scores available to conduct the initial evaluation of disease severity. For instance, the Harvey–Bradshaw Index (HBI) is used in CD, while the partial Mayo Score (pMAYO) is used in UC. There has been a recent shift towards evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PRO2) because patients’ perceptions of their illness and symptoms may differ significantly from those of the treating physician [7,13,14,15]. On the other hand, patients often consider clinical symptoms as the most crucial factor in addressing their care, and therefore can also represent important therapeutic goals [16]. However, about one-third of IBD patients in clinical remission will have transmural mucosal inflammation [13,17,18]. As a result, the STRIDE-II consensus recognized symptom relief (clinical response and clinical remission) as crucial short-term and intermediate therapeutic goals. However, clinical parameters alone are insufficient as long-term targets, and the use of objective markers is necessary [7]. It is worth noting that the CALM trial indicated that escalating treatment based on symptoms alone resulted in a lower rate of mucosal healing (MH) than guiding treatment with a composite strategy of clinical and biochemical activity evaluation, which includes fecal calprotectin (FC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) [19]. According to the latest American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guidelines, patients with symptomatically active IBD should follow a combination approach that includes biomarkers in addition to symptoms [20,21]. This approach is recommended for better disease management.

2.2. Laboratory Parameters

A biomarker is defined as “a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indication of normal biologic processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention” [22]. An ideal biomarker should have three qualities. Firstly, it must be reliable in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility. Secondly, it should have good patient compliance, which means it should be non-invasive, rapid, and cheap. Finally, it should have kinetic stability, which means it should not be influenced by the patient’s status and remain stable during storage and shipment [23]. Over the years, numerous biomarkers have been investigated throughout the years, and most of them are summarized in Table 1. They are divided into two main categories: serum biomarkers and fecal biomarkers [23]. According to a meta-analysis by Mosli et al., where the diagnostic performance of the main biomarkers was compared with endoscopy used as a reference standard, high CRP values (>5 mg/L) were associated with high specificity but very low sensitivity. On the other hand, high FC values (>50 mcg/gr) showed opposite characteristics, i.e., high sensitivity but low specificity [24]. Due to SNP polymorphisms, approximately 15% of healthy individuals and up to 20–25% of CD patients do not have a CRP response, which could be one of the explanations for the poor sensitivity reported in many studies [25,26,27]. However, among the therapeutic scenarios in which CRP has been found to be quite reliable is its ability to predict responsiveness to treatment with biological drugs [28]. As proven by observational studies and post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), CRP early normalization after anti-TNF-alpha induction or significant reduction (>50%) predicts long-term sustained clinical remission, particularly in CD [7,23].
The Oxford-Travis criteria are a combination of CRP > 45 mg/L with a stool frequency between 3 and 8 per day on the third day of intravenous steroids, which can predict the occurrence of colectomy in acute severe UC (ASUC) during hospitalization [29,30]. FC is the most used biomarker in clinical practice as it correlates well with inflammation in the bowel, including disease activity and is resistant to degradation. However, it has some disadvantages including poorer sensitivity in isolated ileal CD, discomfort when handling liquid stools, the need for standardization (FC cut-offs, FC assay), intra-individual variability (even within a day), and cost [31]. Additionally, FC does not have absolute specificity for IBD as it can be elevated during infections of various etiologies, tumors, drugs, or other clinical conditions that can mimic IBD symptoms (Table 2) [31,32]. FC has been shown to be effective in all major clinical contexts of IBD, including an important role in predicting the effectiveness of biological therapies, similar to CRP [7,23,28]. In fact, FC was able to predict sustained clinical response 1 year after anti-TNF-alpha induction in a prospective study of 63 IBD patients, with 83% sensitivity and 74% specificity using a cut-off of 168 ug/g [33]. Although specific cut-offs capable of predicting response to treatment differ from patient to patient and based on different clinical scenarios, similar results have been observed in post-hoc RCTs and real-life observational studies with biological drugs (i.e., vedolizumab, ustekinumab) and small molecules (i.e., tofacitinib) [7,23,28].
Some novel biomarkers look promising, including blood-based ratios and microRNAs [34]. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a readily accessible hematological biomarker that correlates with the response of biological drugs and predicts endoscopic outcomes in both UC and CD [35,36]. On the other hand, distinct panels of miRNAs have been identified in blood and fecal samples of IBD patients, with a future potential role in disease monitoring [34].

2.3. Endoscopic Parameters

2.3.1. Ileo-Colonoscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy

Endoscopy (including ileo-colonoscopy (CS) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (SG)) plays a crucial role in the diagnosis and management of IBD since the endoscopic parameters represent the gold standard for evaluating disease activity. It not only helps in the identification of lesions and strictures but also aids in the evaluation of disease activity and response to treatment. Direct visualization of the mucosa and histological confirmation through endoscopy have therapeutic value and are useful in CRC-surveillance. Recently, a promising novel technique called Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (CLE) may allow in vivo visualization of histological abnormalities and targeted optical biopsies. In particular, recent data supports the idea that increased intestinal permeability as assessed by CLE may predict the relapse of IBD patients, even in the presence of clinical remission, with a future potential role in disease follow-up [37].
Scoring systems have been developed to stratify endoscopic severity, with Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) and Mayo Endoscopic Sub-score (eMAYO) being the most commonly used in clinical practice [12,38,39]. Studies and meta-analyses have shown that achieving MH is essential in both UC and CD. It has been associated with reduced hospitalization, surgery, bowel damage, corticosteroid use, and risk of clinical flare, as well as a positive impact on work and leisure activities [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. According to a recent meta-analysis of 17 cohort studies that included over 2608 UC patients in clinical remission, those with MES of 0 had a 52% reduced risk of clinical relapse compared to patients with MES of 1. Moreover, individuals who achieved both MES of 0 and histological healing (HH, defined as the absence of neutrophils in the epithelium) had a 63% lower risk of clinical relapse compared to those with histological activity [47].
Despite its effectiveness, endoscopy has some drawbacks. It is an invasive procedure that is not always well accepted by the patient, it is costly, time consuming and it is not without possible complications, although these are rare (<1%) in expert hands [38]. According to a French survey, patients find all monitoring tools offered to them useful (from venipuncture to colonoscopy), but endoscopy is less acceptable when compared to other non-invasive methods such as intestinal ultrasound (IUS), biomarkers, video-capsule endoscopy (VCE), or magnetic resonance imaging [48].

2.3.2. Video-Capsule Endoscopy

Previous studies have shown that 30–70% of CD patients have small bowel involvement and up to 30% of patients diagnosed with CD have only small bowel involvement which increases the likelihood of a more complex disease course [49,50,51,52]. VCE is a non-invasive method that can be used to visualize the small intestinal mucosa accurately. A meta-analysis conducted by Niv revealed that MH detection by capsule is a good predictor of long-term clinical remission [53]. Therefore, the STRIDE-II consensus and recent European Society of Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines recommend the use of this method for longitudinal monitoring and evaluating the response to medical treatment, provided that specific validated quantitative activity scores (LEWIS score and CECDAI score) are used [7,54]. However, the use of VCE is limited by its cost, restricted availability, risk of capsule retention, and the need for expert training for reporting. Even when a patency capsule is used in individuals judged at high-risk (i.e., those with a history of abdominal surgery or small-bowel obstruction), the rates of capsule retention range from 1.5% to 2.1% [55]. To justify the appropriate use of VCE in long-term monitoring, the combination of VCE and FC may assist [11]. In the future, artificial intelligence (AI) might aid in lower reporting times, reduce interobserver variability, and develop new powered software capable of autonomously classifying inflammatory activity scores [56,57,58].

2.4. Radiological Parameters

2.4.1. Magnetic Resonance and Computed Tomography Enterography

Cross-sectional imaging plays a crucial role in the evaluation and monitoring of IBD. It is an effective tool for assessing MH, transmural healing (TH, defined as a bowel wall thickness BWT < 3 mm and no signs of hyperperfusion, edema, ulcers or fat stranding), as well as for monitoring the effects of therapy in CD [11,59,60,61]. In addition to assessing the entire gastrointestinal tract, imaging can also help in the identification of CD complications such as strictures or fistulas, as well as perianal disease. Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and computed tomography enterography (CTE) are the most used imaging modalities for CD, although CTE is mostly recommended for emergency settings due to the risk of ionizing radiation exposure but is important to mention that in clinical practice MRE and CTE have comparable diagnostic accuracy [11]. Several scoring systems have been developed to standardize MRE assessment in CD, including the Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity (MaRIA) score, Clermont Index, London score, and Nancy score [60,61]. These scoring systems are effective in correlating with the presence of mucosal inflammation, but they are not easy to use daily. Despite its usefulness, MRE has some limitations, such as limited availability, long image acquisition time, high-cost, the need for fasting, and (sometimes) for bowel preparation [11].

2.4.2. Point-of-Care Ultrasound

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is gaining significant interest and appeal as a non-invasive, repeatable, low-cost, promising tool for monitoring therapeutic response, and examining patients at the bedside [11,60,62,63]. It is being considered as the future stethoscope [62]. Many studies have demonstrated the clinical utility of IUS for assessing TH [64,65,66], while different activity scores have been developed in both CD and UC. There is now emerging agreement on the most relevant criteria to include and how they should be quantified, although only a few IUS scores for UC have been extensively confirmed and validated [60,61]. The Milan Ultrasound Criteria (MUC) is the simplest score validated in different cohorts for UC [67,68,69,70]. When BWT was assessed under standardized conditions, interrater agreement was good to almost perfect [71,72,73,74]. However, IUS has some limitations, including lower accuracy (compared to MRE) in evaluating the proximal small bowel and rectum, lower interobserver reliability for some sonographic parameters (i.e., color Doppler signal, inflammatory fat detection, bowel wall stratification), and the need for specific training [60,61].

3. Discussion

The most recent STRIDE-II international consensus has developed a simple algorithm to meet treatment targets in three main steps. The first step is to make the patient feel well, followed by normalizing biomarkers (serum and fecal levels), and finally achieving MH. Additionally, TH in CD and HH in UC are assessed as measures of the depth of remission achieved, although they are not formal targets. However, it should be noted that this algorithm is a generic scheme with some significant limitations. IUS is not used in this algorithm to track therapeutic response, and some patients with isolated small bowel involvement or those with penetrating/fibrostenotic phenotype may require specific instrumental monitoring [7]. To address these limitations, a simplified evidence-based monitoring algorithm (Table 3) has been presented that can be easily applied in clinical practice and combines all major monitoring modalities, including noninvasive tools such as IUS and VCE.

3.1. Clinical Assessment

During active disease, it is recommended to undergo clinical assessment roughly every 3 months (STRIDE-I and II, CALM, ECCO-ESGAR) and approximately every 3–6 months in clinically asymptomatic patients depending upon duration of remission and current therapy (ECCO-ESGAR) [6,7,11,19]. For patients in remission, it is recommended to undergo clinical assessment every 6–12 months (STRIDE-I). The new STRIDE-II recommendations provide some information on the time required to attain treatment goals in UC and CD based on different treatment modalities. However, it should be noted that time points are based on expert opinion and comparisons among different drugs are challenging in the absence of head-to-head controlled trials [7].

3.2. Biochemical Assessment

Biochemical assessment is an important tool for determining response to treatment during active disease. According to the ECCO-ESGAR guidelines, FC can be used to determine response to treatment approximately 3–6 months after treatment initiation in active UC and within 3 months in active CD. In IBD patients who have reached clinical and biochemical remission, the interval of monitoring should be between 3–6 months depending upon duration of remission and current therapy [11]. On the other hand, the AGA guidelines recommend 2–4 months of biomarker monitoring for CD patients with symptomatically active disease, and 6–12 months of biomarker monitoring in CD and UC patients in symptomatic remission [20,21].

3.3. Endoscopic Evaluation

To monitor therapeutic efficacy, the ECCO-ESGAR guidelines recommend an endoscopic examination 3–6 months after treatment onset in UC and an endoscopic (or transmural) response within 6 months of initiating treatment in CD. A flexible SG is usually sufficient for UC as it involves the mucosa continually from the rectum to the colon [11]. According to the STRIDE-I guidelines, following the initiation of medication, endoscopic disease activity should be reviewed at 6 to 9 months in CD and 3 to 6 months in UC [6]. The AGA guidelines recommend an endoscopic (and/or radiologic) evaluation typically 6–12 months after treatment initiation or adjustment in patients with symptomatically active CD, after resolution of symptoms and normalization of biomarkers [20]. It is important to note that in CD patients who have achieved clinical remission, the AGA guidelines recommend that endoscopic (or radiologic) remission should ideally be confirmed within 3 years [20]. However, in general, endoscopic reassessment of IBD patients should be considered in cases of severe relapse or prompted by consecutive positive biomarkers [76]. The ECCO and British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines dictate endoscopic surveillance according to risk stratification as follows:
-
Patients with high-risk features such as stricture or dysplasia detected within the past 5 years, PSC, extensive colitis with severe active inflammation, or a family history of CRC in a first degree relative less than 50 years should have next surveillance colonoscopy scheduled in 1 year;
-
Patients with intermediate-risk which includes extensive colitis with mild or moderate active inflammation, post-inflammatory polyps or a family history of CRC in a first degree relative at 50 years and above should have their next surveillance colonoscopy scheduled in 2 to 3 years;
-
Patients with low-risk such as those with left colitis, pancolitis in endoscopic and histological remission, or Crohn’s colitis affecting less than 50% of the colon, should have their next surveillance colonoscopy scheduled in 5 years [8,9,10,11,75].
In clinical practice, it is imperative to examine MH at the appropriate time, which is neither too early nor too late. A suitable compromise would be to carry out the first colonoscopy roughly one year following the start of therapy, which is also the time period for reassessment inferred from RCTs [11,87]. According to the STRIDE-II consensus and ESGE guidelines, VCE is recommended for evaluating MH in CD patients with small bowel involvement after initiating treatment. However, the surveillance time points in this setting can vary significantly, as reported in a recent systematic review [83]. Some studies used a 3–month interval [88,89] between VCE assessments, while others used a 6–12 month interval [90,91,92]. To minimize the risk of capsule retention, the appropriate use of VCE in long-term monitoring should be prompted by biomarkers positivity. In a prospective study of 43 CD patients in clinical remission, FC (and other fecal biomarkers) was a good predictor of MH assessed by VCE, proving useful in monitoring CD progress. Increased FC levels predicted mucosal inflammation at VCE with an estimated sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 100%, and an AUC of 0.94 using the optimum cutoff of 98 μg/g [84]. These results were confirmed by a recent meta-analysis and systematic review, which found similar pooled results using a cutoff of 100 μg/g (sensitivity of 0.73, specificity of 0.73, and diagnostic odds ratios of 7.89) [85].

3.4. Imaging Evaluation

In CD, it is recommended to evaluate TH (using MRE or CTE) ideally after a median of 26 weeks of treatment, according to a recent systematic review that examined the connection between TH and disease-related outcomes in 1835 CD patients [77]. The International Bowel Ultrasound Group suggests that IUS response in IBD patients should initially be assessed at week 14 ± 2 after treatment initiation and between week 26–52, or perform IUS depending on elevated FC, symptoms or clinical suspicion of flare [78,79]. A recent prospective study of UC patients starting biological therapies also demonstrated the usefulness of early IUS (at week 12) with the MUC score in predicting long-term endoscopic response [69]. It is worth noting that IUS response in UC patients treated with small molecules (i.e., tofacitinib) can be identified earlier after treatment begins, and early IUS evaluation may be useful even after 8 weeks [86]. Experts recommend scheduled IUS assessment every 6–12 months in the maintenance phase [62,78,79,80,81,82,86].

4. Conclusions

The treat-to-target (T2T) strategy for early and effective treatment is crucial for improving long-term outcomes in IBD. Results of the ongoing REACT-2 trial suggest that T2T based on ulcer healing was no more effective than standard symptom-based management for patients with CD regarding the primary outcome of first complication at 24 months [93]. While STRIDE recommendations provide useful information for tailored treatment management, they have certain limitations, such as the lack of an ultrasound monitoring strategy and being too simple [6,7]. On the other hand, IUS cannot replace endoscopy in the surveillance of UC-associated neoplasia at the moment, but it can reduce the frequency of cumbersome modalities. We presented a schematic evidence-based monitoring algorithm that combines all major monitoring modalities with noninvasive surrogates and can be easily applied in clinical practice. However, more research is needed to develop and validate new diagnostic algorithms for monitoring patients with IBD.
In the future, monitoring tools such as AI, remote monitoring, wearable devices (i.e., fitness bands or watches), and point-of-care technology (i.e., panenteric capsules, Calprosmart, or CRP at home), should be less intrusive, less expensive, and ultimately minimize unnecessary patient hospitalization [94]. Moreover, it is likely that TH will soon become the main therapeutic target in CD.

Author Contributions

A.V. and M.M.: conception and design of the study, drafting of the manuscript. A.V., M.M., E.S., F.S.M., A.O., M.G., D.R., G.S. and A.F.: critical revision of the manuscript for relevant intellectual content. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Seyedian, S.S.; Nokhostin, F.; Malamir, M.D. A review of the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment methods of inflammatory bowel disease. J. Med. Life 2019, 12, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pariente, B.; Cosnes, J.; Danese, S.; Sandborn, W.J.; Lewin, M.; Fletcher, J.G.; Chowers, Y.; D’Haens, G.; Feagan, B.G.; Hibi, T.; et al. Development of the Crohn’s disease digestive damage score, the Lémann score. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2011, 17, 1415–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Torres, J.; Billioud, V.; Sachar, D.B.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Colombel, J.F. Ulcerative colitis as a progressive disease: The forgotten evidence. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2012, 18, 1356–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Solitano, V.; D’Amico, F.; Zacharopoulou, E.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Danese, S. Early Intervention in Ulcerative Colitis: Ready for Prime Time? J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lenti, M.V.; Scribano, M.L.; Biancone, L.; Ciccocioppo, R.; Pugliese, D.; Pastorelli, L.; Fiorino, G.; Savarino, E.; Caprioli, F.A.; Ardizzone, S.; et al. Personalize, participate, predict, and prevent: 4Ps in inflammatory bowel disease. Front. Med. 2023, 10, 1031998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Sandborn, W.; Sands, B.E.; Reinisch, W.; Bemelman, W.; Bryant, R.V.; D’Haens, G.; Dotan, I.; Dubinsky, M.; Feagan, B.; et al. Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE): Determining Therapeutic Goals for Treat-to-Target. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 110, 1324–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Turner, D.; Ricciuto, A.; Lewis, A.; D’Amico, F.; Dhaliwal, J.; Griffiths, A.M.; Bettenworth, D.; Sandborn, W.J.; Sands, B.E.; Reinisch, W.; et al. STRIDE-II: An Update on the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) Initiative of the International Organization for the Study of IBD (IOIBD): Determining Therapeutic Goals for Treat-to-Target strategies in IBD. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 1570–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Annese, V.; Daperno, M.; Rutter, M.D.; Amiot, A.; Bossuyt, P.; East, J.; Ferrante, M.; Götz, M.; Katsanos, K.H.; Kießlich, R.; et al. European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2013, 7, 982–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Vitello, A.; Shahini, E.; Macaluso, F.S.; Morreale, G.C.; Sinagra, E.; Pallio, S.; Maida, M. Endoscopic surveillance of colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel diseases: A review of the literature. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2020, 20, 851–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gordon, H.; Biancone, L.; Fiorino, G.; Katsanos, K.H.; Kopylov, U.; Al Sulais, E.; Axelrad, J.E.; Balendran, K.; Burisch, J.; de Ridder, L.; et al. ECCO Guidelines on Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Malignancies. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2023, 17, 827–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Maaser, C.; Sturm, A.; Vavricka, S.R.; Kucharzik, T.; Fiorino, G.; Annese, V.; Calabrese, E.; Baumgart, D.C.; Bettenworth, D.; Borralho Nunes, P.; et al. ECCO-ESGAR Guideline for Diagnostic Assessment in IBD Part 1: Initial diagnosis, monitoring of known IBD, detection of complications. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2019, 13, 144–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sturm, A.; Maaser, C.; Calabrese, E.; Annese, V.; Fiorino, G.; Kucharzik, T.; Vavricka, S.R.; Verstockt, B.; van Rheenen, P.; Tolan, D.; et al. ECCO-ESGAR Guideline for Diagnostic Assessment in IBD Part 2: IBD scores and general principles and technical aspects. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2019, 13, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baars, J.E.; Nuij, V.J.; Oldenburg, B.; Kuipers, E.J.; van der Woude, C.J. Majority of patients with inflammatory bowel disease in clinical remission have mucosal inflammation. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2012, 18, 1634–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rochelle, T.L.; Fidler, H. The importance of illness perceptions, quality of life and psychological status in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. J. Health Psychol. 2013, 18, 972–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khanna, R.; Zou, G.; D’Haens, G.; Feagan, B.G.; Sandborn, W.J.; Vandervoort, M.K.; Rolleri, R.L.; Bortey, E.; Paterson, C.; Forbes, W.P.; et al. A retrospective analysis: The development of patient reported outcome measures for the assessment of Crohn’s disease activity. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015, 41, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rubin, D.T.; Sninsky, C.; Siegmund, B.; Sans, M.; Hart, A.; Bressler, B.; Bouhnik, Y.; Armuzzi, A.; Afzali, A. International Perspectives on Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Opinion Differences and Similarities Between Patients and Physicians from the IBD GAPPS Survey. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2021, 27, 1942–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Weinstein-Nakar, I.; Focht, G.; Church, P.; Walters, T.D.; Abitbol, G.; Anupindi, S.; Berteloot, L.; Hulst, J.M.; Ruemmele, F.; Lemberg, D.A.; et al. Associations Among Mucosal and Transmural Healing and Fecal Level of Calprotectin in Children with Crohn’s Disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Off. Clin. Pract. J. Am. Gastroenterol. Assoc. 2018, 16, 1089–1097.e1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Civitelli, F.; Nuti, F.; Oliva, S.; Messina, L.; La Torre, G.; Viola, F.; Cucchiara, S.; Aloi, M. Looking Beyond Mucosal Healing: Effect of Biologic Therapy on Transmural Healing in Pediatric Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2016, 22, 2418–2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Colombel, J.F.; Panaccione, R.; Bossuyt, P.; Lukas, M.; Baert, F.; Vaňásek, T.; Danalioglu, A.; Novacek, G.; Armuzzi, A.; Hébuterne, X.; et al. Effect of tight control management on Crohn’s disease (CALM): A multicentre, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017, 390, 2779–2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ananthakrishnan, A.N.; Adler, J.; Chachu, K.A.; Nguyen, N.H.; Siddique, S.M.; Weiss, J.M.; Sultan, S.; Velayos, F.S.; Cohen, B.L.; Singh, S. AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Crohn’s Disease. Gastroenterology 2023, 165, 1367–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Singh, S.; Ananthakrishnan, A.N.; Nguyen, N.H.; Cohen, B.L.; Velayos, F.S.; Weiss, J.M.; Sultan, S.; Siddique, S.M.; Adler, J.; Chachu, K.A. AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Ulcerative Colitis. Gastroenterology 2023, 164, 344–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aronson, J.K.; Ferner, R.E. Biomarkers—A General Review. Curr. Protoc. Pharmacol. 2017, 76, 9.23.1–9.23.17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dragoni, G.; Innocenti, T.; Galli, A. Biomarkers of Inflammation in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: How Long before Abandoning Single-Marker Approaches? Dig. Dis. 2021, 39, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mosli, M.H.; Zou, G.; Garg, S.K.; Feagan, S.G.; MacDonald, J.K.; Chande, N.; Sandborn, W.J.; Feagan, B.G. C-Reactive Protein, Fecal Calprotectin, and Stool Lactoferrin for Detection of Endoscopic Activity in Symptomatic Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 110, 802–819; quiz 820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Suk Danik, J.; Chasman, D.I.; Cannon, C.P.; Miller, D.T.; Zee, R.Y.; Kozlowski, P.; Kwiatkowski, D.J.; Ridker, P.M. Influence of genetic variation in the C-reactive protein gene on the inflammatory response during and after acute coronary ischemia. Ann. Hum. Genet. 2006, 70, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Henderson, P.; Kennedy, N.A.; Van Limbergen, J.E.; Cameron, F.L.; Satsangi, J.; Russell, R.K.; Wilson, D.C. Serum C-reactive protein and CRP genotype in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: Influence on phenotype, natural history, and response to therapy. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2015, 21, 596–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Chang, S.; Malter, L.; Hudesman, D. Disease monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease. World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 11246–11259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sakurai, T.; Saruta, M. Positioning and Usefulness of Biomarkers in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Digestion 2023, 104, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Harbord, M.; Eliakim, R.; Bettenworth, D.; Karmiris, K.; Katsanos, K.; Kopylov, U.; Kucharzik, T.; Molnár, T.; Raine, T.; Sebastian, S.; et al. Third European Evidence-based Consensus on Diagnosis and Management of Ulcerative Colitis. Part 2: Current Management. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2017, 11, 769–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Spinelli, A.; Bonovas, S.; Burisch, J.; Kucharzik, T.; Adamina, M.; Annese, V.; Bachmann, O.; Bettenworth, D.; Chaparro, M.; Czuber-Dochan, W.; et al. ECCO Guidelines on Therapeutics in Ulcerative Colitis: Surgical Treatment. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2022, 16, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jukic, A.; Bakiri, L.; Wagner, E.F.; Tilg, H.; Adolph, T.E. Calprotectin: From biomarker to biological function. Gut 2021, 70, 1978–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tursi, A.; Elisei, W.; Giorgetti, G.; Aiello, F.; Brandimarte, G. Role of fecal calprotectin in the diagnosis and treatment of segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis. Minerva Gastroenterol. Dietol. 2011, 57, 247–255. [Google Scholar]
  33. Guidi, L.; Marzo, M.; Andrisani, G.; Felice, C.; Pugliese, D.; Mocci, G.; Nardone, O.; De Vitis, I.; Papa, A.; Rapaccini, G.; et al. Faecal calprotectin assay after induction with anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor α agents in inflammatory bowel disease: Prediction of clinical response and mucosal healing at one year. Dig. Liver Dis. Off. J. Ital. Soc. Gastroenterol. Ital. Assoc. Study Liver 2014, 46, 974–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alghoul, Z.; Yang, C.; Merlin, D. The Current Status of Molecular Biomarkers for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Magalhaes, D.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Estevinho, M.M.; Danese, S.; Magro, F. Pursuing neutrophils: Systematic scoping review on blood-based biomarkers as predictors of treatment outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2023, 16, 17562848231155987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Crispino, F.; Grova, M.; Maida, M.; Renna, S.; Mocciaro, F.; Casà, A.; Rizzuto, G.; Tesè, L.; Scimeca, D.; Di Mitri, R.; et al. Blood-based prognostic biomarkers in Crohn’s Disease patients on biologics: A promising tool to predict endoscopic outcomes. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2021, 21, 1133–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Chiriac, S.; Sfarti, C.V.; Minea, H.; Stanciu, C.; Cojocariu, C.; Singeap, A.M.; Girleanu, I.; Cuciureanu, T.; Petrea, O.; Huiban, L.; et al. Impaired Intestinal Permeability Assessed by Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy-A New Potential Therapeutic Target in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Spiceland, C.M.; Lodhia, N. Endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: Role in diagnosis, management, and treatment. World J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 24, 4014–4020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Daperno, M. Endoscopy in IBD: When and How? Diagnostics 2023, 13, 3423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Schnitzler, F.; Fidder, H.; Ferrante, M.; Noman, M.; Arijs, I.; Van Assche, G.; Hoffman, I.; Van Steen, K.; Vermeire, S.; Rutgeerts, P. Mucosal healing predicts long-term outcome of maintenance therapy with infliximab in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2009, 15, 1295–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Frøslie, K.F.; Jahnsen, J.; Moum, B.A.; Vatn, M.H. Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease: Results from a Norwegian population-based cohort. Gastroenterology 2007, 133, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Baert, F.; Moortgat, L.; Van Assche, G.; Caenepeel, P.; Vergauwe, P.; De Vos, M.; Stokkers, P.; Hommes, D.; Rutgeerts, P.; Vermeire, S.; et al. Mucosal healing predicts sustained clinical remission in patients with early-stage Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2010, 138, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Neurath, M.F.; Travis, S.P. Mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel diseases: A systematic review. Gut 2012, 61, 1619–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shah, S.C.; Colombel, J.F.; Sands, B.E.; Narula, N. Mucosal Healing Is Associated with Improved Long-term Outcomes of Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Off. Clin. Pract. J. Am. Gastroenterol. Assoc. 2016, 14, 1245–1255.e1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shah, S.C.; Colombel, J.F.; Sands, B.E.; Narula, N. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Mucosal healing is associated with improved long-term outcomes in Crohn’s disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2016, 43, 317–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Armuzzi, A.; Tarallo, M.; Lucas, J.; Bluff, D.; Hoskin, B.; Bargo, D.; Cappelleri, J.C.; Salese, L.; daCosta DiBonaventura, M. The association between disease activity and patient-reported outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in the United States and Europe. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020, 20, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yoon, H.; Jangi, S.; Dulai, P.S.; Boland, B.S.; Prokop, L.J.; Jairath, V.; Feagan, B.G.; Sandborn, W.J.; Singh, S. Incremental Benefit of Achieving Endoscopic and Histologic Remission in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology 2020, 159, 1262–1275.e1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Buisson, A.; Gonzalez, F.; Poullenot, F.; Nancey, S.; Sollellis, E.; Fumery, M.; Pariente, B.; Flamant, M.; Trang-Poisson, C.; Bonnaud, G.; et al. Comparative Acceptability and Perceived Clinical Utility of Monitoring Tools: A Nationwide Survey of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2017, 23, 1425–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Satsangi, J.; Silverberg, M.S.; Vermeire, S.; Colombel, J.F. The Montreal classification of inflammatory bowel disease: Controversies, consensus, and implications. Gut 2006, 55, 749–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hall, B.; Holleran, G.; McNamara, D. Small bowel Crohn’s disease: An emerging disease phenotype? Dig. Dis. 2015, 33, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Cosnes, J.; Cattan, S.; Blain, A.; Beaugerie, L.; Carbonnel, F.; Parc, R.; Gendre, J.P. Long-term evolution of disease behavior of Crohn’s disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2002, 8, 244–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Louis, E.; Collard, A.; Oger, A.F.; Degroote, E.; Aboul Nasr El Yafi, F.A.; Belaiche, J. Behaviour of Crohn’s disease according to the Vienna classification: Changing pattern over the course of the disease. Gut 2001, 49, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Niv, Y. Small-bowel mucosal healing assessment by capsule endoscopy as a predictor of long-term clinical remission in patients with Crohn’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 29, 844–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pennazio, M.; Rondonotti, E.; Despott, E.J.; Dray, X.; Keuchel, M.; Moreels, T.; Sanders, D.S.; Spada, C.; Carretero, C.; Cortegoso Valdivia, P.; et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline—Update 2022. Endoscopy 2023, 55, 58–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nemeth, A.; Kopylov, U.; Koulaouzidis, A.; Wurm Johansson, G.; Thorlacius, H.; Amre, D.; Eliakim, R.; Seidman, E.G.; Toth, E. Use of patency capsule in patients with established Crohn’s disease. Endoscopy 2016, 48, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Le Berre, C.; Sandborn, W.J.; Aridhi, S.; Devignes, M.D.; Fournier, L.; Smaïl-Tabbone, M.; Danese, S.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L. Application of Artificial Intelligence to Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Gastroenterology 2020, 158, 76–94.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ukashi, O.; Soffer, S.; Klang, E.; Eliakim, R.; Ben-Horin, S.; Kopylov, U. Capsule Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Panenteric Capsule Endoscopy and Application of Artificial Intelligence. Gut Liver 2023, 17, 516–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Diaconu, C.; State, M.; Birligea, M.; Ifrim, M.; Bajdechi, G.; Georgescu, T.; Mateescu, B.; Voiosu, T. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Monitoring Inflammatory Bowel Disease-The Future Is Now. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Thierry, M.L.; Rousseau, H.; Pouillon, L.; Girard-Gavanier, M.; Baumann, C.; Lopez, A.; Danese, S.; Laurent, V.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L. Accuracy of Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Mucosal Healing and Treatment Response, and in Predicting Surgery, in Crohn’s Disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2018, 12, 1180–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Rimola, J.; Torres, J.; Kumar, S.; Taylor, S.A.; Kucharzik, T. Recent advances in clinical practice: Advances in cross-sectional imaging in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2022, 71, 2587–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Hameed, M.; Taylor, S.A. Small bowel imaging in inflammatory bowel disease: Updates for 2023. Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2023, 17, 1117–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Allocca, M.; Furfaro, F.; Fiorino, G.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Danese, S. Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2021, 15, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dolinger, M.T.; Kellar, A. Point-of-Care Intestinal Ultrasound in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2023, 25, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Castiglione, F.; Imperatore, N.; Testa, A.; De Palma, G.D.; Nardone, O.M.; Pellegrini, L.; Caporaso, N.; Rispo, A. One-year clinical outcomes with biologics in Crohn’s disease: Transmural healing compared with mucosal or no healing. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 49, 1026–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rispo, A.; Imperatore, N.; Testa, A.; Bucci, L.; Luglio, G.; De Palma, G.D.; Rea, M.; Nardone, O.M.; Caporaso, N.; Castiglione, F. Combined Endoscopic/Sonographic-based Risk Matrix Model for Predicting One-year Risk of Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study of a Tertiary Centre Severe/Refractory Crohn’s Disease Cohort. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2018, 12, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Castiglione, F.; Mainenti, P.; Testa, A.; Imperatore, N.; De Palma, G.D.; Maurea, S.; Rea, M.; Nardone, O.M.; Sanges, M.; Caporaso, N.; et al. Cross-sectional evaluation of transmural healing in patients with Crohn’s disease on maintenance treatment with anti-TNF alpha agents. Dig. Liver Dis. Off. J. Ital. Soc. Gastroenterol. Ital. Assoc. Study Liver 2017, 49, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Allocca, M.; Fiorino, G.; Bonovas, S.; Furfaro, F.; Gilardi, D.; Argollo, M.; Magnoni, P.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Danese, S. Accuracy of Humanitas Ultrasound Criteria in Assessing Disease Activity and Severity in Ulcerative Colitis: A Prospective Study. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2018, 12, 1385–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Allocca, M.; Dell’Avalle, C.; Craviotto, V.; Furfaro, F.; Zilli, A.; D’Amico, F.; Bonovas, S.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Fiorino, G.; Danese, S. Predictive value of Milan ultrasound criteria in ulcerative colitis: A prospective observational cohort study. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2022, 10, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Allocca, M.; Dell’Avalle, C.; Furfaro, F.; Zilli, A.; D’Amico, F.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Fiorino, G.; Danese, S. Early Intestinal Ultrasound Predicts Long-Term Endoscopic Response to Biologics in Ulcerative Colitis. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2023, 17, 1579–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Piazza, O.S.N.; Noviello, D.; Filippi, E.; Conforti, F.; Furfaro, F.; Fraquelli, M.; Costantino, A.; Danese, S.; Vecchi, M.; Fiorino, G.; et al. Superior predictive value of transmural over endoscopic severity for colectomy risk in ulcerative colitis: A multicenter prospective cohort study. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2023, jjad152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Parente, F.; Molteni, M.; Marino, B.; Colli, A.; Ardizzone, S.; Greco, S.; Sampietro, G.; Foschi, D.; Gallus, S. Are colonoscopy and bowel ultrasound useful for assessing response to short-term therapy and predicting disease outcome of moderate-to-severe forms of ulcerative colitis? A prospective study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 105, 1150–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. De Voogd, F.; Wilkens, R.; Gecse, K.; Allocca, M.; Novak, K.; Lu, C.; D’Haens, G.; Maaser, C. A Reliability Study: Strong Inter-Observer Agreement of an Expert Panel for Intestinal Ultrasound in Ulcerative Colitis. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2021, 15, 1284–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bots, S.; Nylund, K.; Löwenberg, M.; Gecse, K.; D’Haens, G. Intestinal Ultrasound to Assess Disease Activity in Ulcerative Colitis: Development of a novel UC-Ultrasound Index. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2021, 15, 1264–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Novak, K.L.; Nylund, K.; Maaser, C.; Petersen, F.; Kucharzik, T.; Lu, C.; Allocca, M.; Maconi, G.; de Voogd, F.; Christensen, B.; et al. Expert Consensus on Optimal Acquisition and Development of the International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score [IBUS-SAS]: A Reliability and Inter-rater Variability Study on Intestinal Ultrasonography in Crohn’s Disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2021, 15, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lamb, C.A.; Kennedy, N.A.; Raine, T.; Hendy, P.A.; Smith, P.J.; Limdi, J.K.; Hayee, B.; Lomer, M.C.E.; Parkes, G.C.; Selinger, C.; et al. British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults. Gut 2019, 68, s1–s106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gonczi, L.; Bessissow, T.; Lakatos, P.L. Disease monitoring strategies in inflammatory bowel diseases: What do we mean by “tight control”? World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 6172–6189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Geyl, S.; Guillo, L.; Laurent, V.; D’Amico, F.; Danese, S.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L. Transmural healing as a therapeutic goal in Crohn’s disease: A systematic review. Lancet. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 6, 659–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ilvemark, J.; Hansen, T.; Goodsall, T.M.; Seidelin, J.B.; Al-Farhan, H.; Allocca, M.; Begun, J.; Bryant, R.V.; Carter, D.; Christensen, B.; et al. Defining Transabdominal Intestinal Ultrasound Treatment Response and Remission in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Expert Consensus Statement. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2022, 16, 554–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Kucharzik, T.; Verstockt, B.; Maaser, C. Monitoring of patients with active inflammatory bowel disease. Front. Gastroenterol. 2023, 2, 1172318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Dolinger, M.T.; Calabrese, E.; Pizzolante, F.; Abreu, M.T. Current and Novel Uses of Intestinal Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2023, 19, 447–457. [Google Scholar]
  81. Zorzi, F.; Rubin, D.T.; Cleveland, N.K.; Monteleone, G.; Calabrese, E. Ultrasonographic Transmural Healing in Crohn’s Disease. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2023, 118, 961–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dolinger, M.T.; Kayal, M. Intestinal ultrasound as a non-invasive tool to monitor inflammatory bowel disease activity and guide clinical decision making. World J. Gastroenterol. 2023, 29, 2272–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Le Berre, C.; Trang-Poisson, C.; Bourreille, A. Small bowel capsule endoscopy and treat-to-target in Crohn’s disease: A systematic review. World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 4534–4554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Aggarwal, V.; Day, A.S.; Connor, S.; Leach, S.T.; Brown, G.; Singh, R.; Friedman, A.; Zekry, A.; Craig, P.I. Role of capsule endoscopy and fecal biomarkers in small-bowel Crohn’s disease to assess remission and predict relapse. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2017, 86, 1070–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jung, E.S.; Lee, S.P.; Kae, S.H.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, H.S.; Jang, H.J. Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Calprotectin for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease through Capsule Endoscopy: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Gut Liver 2021, 15, 732–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. de Voogd, F.; van Wassenaer, E.A.; Mookhoek, A.; Bots, S.; van Gennep, S.; Löwenberg, M.; D’Haens, G.R.; Gecse, K.B. Intestinal Ultrasound Is Accurate to Determine Endoscopic Response and Remission in Patients with Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Longitudinal Prospective Cohort Study. Gastroenterology 2022, 163, 1569–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Dignass, A.; Rath, S.; Kleindienst, T.; Stallmach, A. Review article: Translating STRIDE-II into clinical reality—Opportunities and challenges. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2023, 58, 492–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Niv, E.; Fishman, S.; Kachman, H.; Arnon, R.; Dotan, I. Sequential capsule endoscopy of the small bowel for follow-up of patients with known Crohn’s disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2014, 8, 1616–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Shafran, I.; Burgunder, P.; DePanicis, R.; Fitch, K. Evaluation of Mucosal Healing in Small Bowel Crohns Disease Treated with Certolizumab Pegol Assessed by Wireless Capsule Endoscopy. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2012, 18, S67–S68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nakamura, M.; Yamamura, T.; Maeda, K.; Sawada, T.; Mizutani, Y.; Ishikawa, T.; Furukawa, K.; Ohno, E.; Kawashima, H.; Miyahara, R.; et al. Validity of Capsule Endoscopy in Monitoring Therapeutic Interventions in Patients with Crohn’s Disease. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Melmed, G.Y.; Dubinsky, M.C.; Rubin, D.T.; Fleisher, M.; Pasha, S.F.; Sakuraba, A.; Tiongco, F.; Shafran, I.; Fernandez-Urien, I.; Rosa, B.; et al. Utility of video capsule endoscopy for longitudinal monitoring of Crohn’s disease activity in the small bowel: A prospective study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2018, 88, 947–955.e942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Hall, B.; Holleran, G.; Chin, J.L.; Smith, S.; Ryan, B.; Mahmud, N.; McNamara, D. A prospective 52 week mucosal healing assessment of small bowel Crohn’s disease as detected by capsule endoscopy. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2014, 8, 1601–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Enhanced Algorithm for Crohn’s Treatment Incorporating Early Combination Therapy (REACT2). Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01698307 (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  94. Plevris, N.; Lees, C.W. Disease Monitoring in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Evolving Principles and Possibilities. Gastroenterology 2022, 162, 1456–1475.e1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 13 01008 g001
Figure 1. Monitoring therapeutic success scheme according to ECCO-ESGAR diagnostic guidelines. Abbreviations. CD: Crohn’s disease; UC: ulcerative colitis; ASUC: acute severe ulcerative colitis; PRO2: patient-reported outcome; AP: abdominal pain; SF: stool frequency; HBI: Harvey-Bradshaw index; pMAYO: partial Mayo score; eMAYO: endoscopic Mayo score; FC: fecal calprotectin; CRP: C-reactive protein; IUS: intestinal ultrasound; MRE: magnetic resonance enterography; CTE: computed tomography enterography; AXR: abdominal X-ray; CT: computed tomography; SES-CD: simple endoscopic score for Crohn’s disease; CECDAI: capsule endoscopy Crohn’s disease activity index; CS: colonoscopy; SG: sigmoidoscopy.
Figure 1. Monitoring therapeutic success scheme according to ECCO-ESGAR diagnostic guidelines. Abbreviations. CD: Crohn’s disease; UC: ulcerative colitis; ASUC: acute severe ulcerative colitis; PRO2: patient-reported outcome; AP: abdominal pain; SF: stool frequency; HBI: Harvey-Bradshaw index; pMAYO: partial Mayo score; eMAYO: endoscopic Mayo score; FC: fecal calprotectin; CRP: C-reactive protein; IUS: intestinal ultrasound; MRE: magnetic resonance enterography; CTE: computed tomography enterography; AXR: abdominal X-ray; CT: computed tomography; SES-CD: simple endoscopic score for Crohn’s disease; CECDAI: capsule endoscopy Crohn’s disease activity index; CS: colonoscopy; SG: sigmoidoscopy.
Jcm 13 01008 g001
Table 1. Main biomarkers studied in IBD.
Table 1. Main biomarkers studied in IBD.
Serum BiomarkersFecal Biomarkers
  • CRP, ESR
  • SC
  • Calgranulin C
  • Neopterin
  • Endothelin
  • IL-6, IL-8, IL-17
  • sTNF-RI, sIL-2R
  • Autoantibodies and Antimicrobial Antibodies (pANCA, ASCA, AMCA, ALCA, ACCA, anti-L, anti-C, anti-CBIR, anti-OMPC, anti-l2)
  • MMP-3, MMP-9
  • LRG
  • MicroRNAs (MiR-16, MiR-21, MiR-155, Mir-223, Mir-320a)
  • EHI—Endoscopic Healing Index (ANG1, ANG2, CRP, SAA1, IL7, EMMPRIN, MMP1, MMP2, MMP3, MMP9, TGFA, CEACAM1, VCAM1)
  • Blood-based ratios (NLR, PLR, ELR, ENLR)
  • FC
  • Lactoferrin
  • Eosinophil Cationic Protein
  • M2-Pyruvate Kinase
  • Osteoprotegrin
  • Myeloperoxidase
  • MMP-9
  • MicroRNAs (MiR-16, MiR-21, MiR-223, MiR-1246)
  • FIT
  • LCN-2/NGAL
Abbreviations. IBD: inflammatory bowel diseases; CRP: C-reactive protein; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; SC: serum calprotectin; sTNF-RI: human soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor I; sIL-2R: soluble interleukin-2 receptor; pANCA: perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic; ASCA: anti-saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies; AMCA: anti-mannobioside carbohydrate antibody; ALCA: anti-chitobioside carbohydrate antibody; ACCA: anti-chitobioside carbohydrate antibody; anti-L: anti-laminarin; anti-C: anti-chitin; anti-CBIR: anti-flagellin CBir1; anti-OMPC: antibodies to the outer-membrane porin C of escherichia coli; anti-l2: antibodies against a pseudomonas fluorescens-associated sequence I2; MMP: matrix metalloproteinase; LRG: serum leucine-rich glycoprotein; ANG: angiopoietin; SAA1: serum amyloid A1; EMMPRIN: extracellular matrix metalloproteinase inducer; TGFA: transforming growth factor alpha; CEACAM1: carcinoembryonic antigen related cell adhesion molecule 1; VCAM1: vascular cell adhesion molecule 1; NLR: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR: platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; ELR: eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; ENLR: eosinophil*neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; FC: fecal calprotectin; FIT: fecal immunochemical test; LCN-2/NGAL: lipocalin-2/neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin.
Table 2. Examples of non-IBD causes of increased FC.
Table 2. Examples of non-IBD causes of increased FC.
Non-IBD Causes of Increased FC
InfectionsOther GI diseases
  • Giardia lamblia
  • Bacterial gastroenteritis (Salmonella, Campylobacter, CDI)
  • Viral gastroenteritis (Rotavirus, Norovirus, SARS-CoV2)
  • Helicobacter pylori gastritis
  • Respiratory infections
  • Cystic fibrosis
  • Coeliac disease (untreated)
  • Diverticular disease
  • SCAD
  • Appendicitis
  • Protein losing enteropathy
  • Colorectal adenoma
  • Juvenile polyp
  • Autoimmune enteropathy
  • Microscopic colitis
  • Necrotising enterocolitis
  • GVHD
  • Liver cirrhosis
  • Young age (infants < 4 years)
  • Family history of IBD (1st degree relative)
Malignancies
  • CRC
  • Gastric carcinoma
  • Intestinal lymphoma
Drugs
  • NSAID
  • PPI
  • Sartans
  • Levodopa
Abbreviations. IBD: inflammatory bowel diseases; FC: fecal calprotectin; CDI: clostridioides difficile infection; SARS-CoV2: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; CRC: colorectal cancer; NSAID: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; PPI: proton pump inhibitors; SCAD: segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis; GVHD: graft-versus-host disease.
Table 3. Potential timing for monitoring IBD patients in clinical practice.
Table 3. Potential timing for monitoring IBD patients in clinical practice.
Crohn’s Disease
Active PhaseMaintenance Phase
Clinical assessment (PRO2, HBI)3 M
[6,7,11,12,19]		Every 3–6–12 M
[6,11,12]
Biochemical assessment (CRP, FC)2–4 M after therapy
[7,11,12,20]		Every 3–6–12 M
[11,12,20]
Endoscopic evaluation (SES-CD)6–9 M after therapy
(within 1 Y)
[6,11,12,20]		Within 3 Y
[20]
Based on surveillance recommendations
[8,10,75]
Prompted by clinical symptoms or biomarkers positivity (FC)
[11,12,76]
Imaging evaluation (IUS/MRE)3–6–12 M after therapy
[11,12,20,77,78]		Within 3 Y
[20]
Every 6–12 M
[62,78,79,80,81,82]
Prompted by clinical symptoms or biomarkers positivity (FC)
[78]
VCE (LEWIS, CECDAI)3–6–12 M after therapy
[83]		Prompted by biomarkers positivity (FC)
[84,85]
Ulcerative colitis
Clinical assessment (PRO2, pMAYO)3 M
[6,7,11,12]		Every 3–6–12 M
[6,11,12]
Biochemical assessment (CRP, FC)3–6 M after therapy
[7,11,12]		Every 3–6–12 M
[11,12,21]
Endoscopic evaluation (eMAYO)3–6 M after therapy
(within 1 Y)
[6,11,12]		Based on surveillance recommendations
[8,10,75]
Prompted by clinical symptoms or biomarkers positivity (FC)
[11,12,76]
Imaging evaluation (IUS)2–3–6 M after therapy
[69,78,86]		Every 6–12 M
[62,78,79,80,82]
Prompted by clinical symptoms or biomarkers positivity (FC)
[78]
Abbreviations. IBD: inflammatory bowel diseases; M: months, Y: years; PRO2: patient-reported outcome; HBI: Harvey–Bradshaw index; CRP: C-reactive protein; FC: fecal calprotectin; SES-CD: simple endoscopic score for Crohn’s disease; IUS: intestinal ultrasound; MRE: magnetic resonance enterography; VCE: video-capsule endoscopy; CECDAI: capsule endoscopy Crohn’s disease activity index; pMAYO: partial Mayo score; eMAYO: endoscopic Mayo score.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vitello, A.; Maida, M.; Shahini, E.; Macaluso, F.S.; Orlando, A.; Grova, M.; Ramai, D.; Serviddio, G.; Facciorusso, A. Current Approaches for Monitoring of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Narrative Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13041008

AMA Style

Vitello A, Maida M, Shahini E, Macaluso FS, Orlando A, Grova M, Ramai D, Serviddio G, Facciorusso A. Current Approaches for Monitoring of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Narrative Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(4):1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13041008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vitello, Alessandro, Marcello Maida, Endrit Shahini, Fabio Salvatore Macaluso, Ambrogio Orlando, Mauro Grova, Daryl Ramai, Gaetano Serviddio, and Antonio Facciorusso. 2024. "Current Approaches for Monitoring of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Narrative Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 4: 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13041008

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop