These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Combined serological, genetic, and inflammatory markers differentiate non-IBD, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis patients.
    Author: Plevy S, Silverberg MS, Lockton S, Stockfisch T, Croner L, Stachelski J, Brown M, Triggs C, Chuang E, Princen F, Singh S.
    Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis; 2013 May; 19(6):1139-48. PubMed ID: 23518807.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that serological markers can assist in diagnosing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In this study, we aim to build a diagnostic tool incorporating serological markers, genetic variants, and markers of inflammation into a computational algorithm to examine patterns of combinations of markers to (1) identify patients with IBD and (2) differentiate patients with Crohn's disease (CD) from ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, patient blood samples from 572 CD, 328 UC, 437 non-IBD controls, and 183 healthy controls from academic and community centers were analyzed for 17 markers: 8 serological markers (ASCA-IgA, ASCA-IgG, ANCA, pANCA, OmpC, CBir1, A4-Fla2, and FlaX), 4 genetic markers (ATG16L1, NKX2-3, ECM1, and STAT3), and 5 inflammatory markers (CRP, SAA, ICAM-1, VCAM-1, and VEGF). A diagnostic Random Forest algorithm was constructed to classify IBD, CD, and UC. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of using a panel of serological markers only (ASCA-IgA, ASCA-IgG, ANCA, pANCA, OmpC, and CBir1) versus using a marker panel that in addition to the serological markers mentioned above also included gene variants, inflammatory markers, and 2 additional serological markers (A4-Fla2 and FlaX). The extended marker panel increased the IBD versus non-IBD discrimination area under the curve from 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], ±0.05) to 0.87 (95% CI, ±0.04; P < 0.001). The CD versus UC discrimination increased from 0.78 (95% CI, ±0.06) to 0.93 (95% CI, ±0.04; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating a combination of serological, genetic, and inflammation markers into a diagnostic algorithm improved the accuracy of identifying IBD and differentiating CD from UC versus using serological markers alone.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]