Utility of Fecal Calprotectin in Routine Clinical Practice Is Impaired by Poor Sample Return Rates
- PDF / 500,295 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 96 Downloads / 177 Views
CORRESPONDENCE
Utility of Fecal Calprotectin in Routine Clinical Practice Is Impaired by Poor Sample Return Rates Christian P. Selinger1 · Helen Rafferty1 · Peter Mooney1 · Clare Donnellan1 Received: 18 September 2020 / Accepted: 22 October 2020 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Editor, We read with interest the study by Barsky et al. [1] reporting on patient preferences for assessment of disease activity of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) by either colonoscopy or fecal calprotectin (FC). They report an initial preference for FC. In our IBD center, FC has been routinely used for disease activity assessment for several years. While our patients mostly express a clear preference that for FC when offered choices in clinic, we were concerned about poor sample return rates. There are little published data on patient adherence to FC requests, although a single report from France showed poor return rates in a small sample of patients asked to provide stool samples for repeated and regular calprotectin testing [2]. We examined sample return rates in a large sample of IBD patients cared for in our IBD clinics, infusion unit, and hospital wards in a UK Teaching Hospital. We identified 963 patients (58% female, mean age 41.8 years) who were asked to provide 1277 samples in 2017. In 231 cases (24%), patients were requested to provide a sample on more than one occasion. On a per-patient level, 310 (32%) patients failed to return a sample. Of 1277 requested samples, 753 (59%) were returned with a non-return rate of 41%. FC forms an important part of IBD disease activity assessment by offering an objective measurement of intestinal inflammation. It is cheaper and less invasive than endoscopic assessments, thereby allowing regular routine assessment of mucosal inflammation. The current proposed treatment strategy that recommends a “treat-to-target” approach of complete mucosal healing relies heavily on fecal calprotectin testing [3–5]. Patient adherence to calprotectin * Christian P. Selinger [email protected] 1
Leeds Gastroenterology Institute, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James University Hospital, Bexley Wing, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK
sampling would therefore impact heavily on the ability to deliver on a “treat-to-target” approach. We report a nonreturn rate of 41% of requested tests thereby highlighting that at current compliance levels the utility of FC is impaired in routine clinical practice. The current low return rates need to be improved to make treat-to-target policies feasible in clinical practice.
Reply We would like to thank Selinger et al. for their thoughtful commentary on our manuscript [1] and the potential role for fecal calprotectin (FC) in treat-to-target monitoring. We agree that patient adherence has the potential to hinder FCbased monitoring, and the collection, storage, and transportation process are all potential sources of non-adherence. The authors have observed a per patient adherence rate of 68% with a per sample adherence rate of 59% in their i
Data Loading...
