Nové přístupy u pacientů trpících nespecifickými střevními záněty
Igor Romanko Orcid.org 1,2, Milan Lukáš Orcid.org 3, Martin Bortlík Orcid.org 3,4,5
+ Pracoviště
Souhrn
Střevní zánětlivá onemocnění (IBD – inflammatory bowel diseases) jsou chronické, v současnosti nevyléčitelné, nemoci znamenající pro pacienty celoživotní zátěž. Jsou typické střídavým průběhem remise a relapsů, což ovlivňuje nejenom celkový zdravotní stav, ale také kvalitu života (QoL – Quality of life) pacientů. Aktivita nemoci a QoL jsou důležitými aspekty při sledování průběhu nemoci a měly by být hodnoceny při kontrolách specialistou. Dlouhodobá dispenzarizace pacientů je nevyhnutelná, ale může být pro některé pacienty komplikovaná z důvodu nedostatku IBD center, dlouhým cestovním vzdálenostem nebo nedostatku volných termínů k objednání. Využití informačních technologií v medicíně (telemedicína) může být nápomocné při sledování průběhu IBD. Nástroje k hodnocení aktivity nemoci a QoL mohou být ve formě internetových dotazníků nebo dotazníků pro mobilní telefony vyplňovány pacienty z domova a návštěva lékaře se doporučí podle výsledků. Tím dochází k přerozdělení zdravotní péče komplikovanějším případům. Takový způsob může ušetřit čas i prostředky zdravotníků a těch pacientů, kteří jsou dlouhodobě v remisi. Článek shrnuje invazivní (endoskopie) a neinvazivní (fekální kalprotektin, dotazníky) nástroje pro hodnocení QoL a aktivity nemoci a poukazuje na možnosti využití telemedicíny v klinické praxi.
Klíčová slova
Crohnova choroba, aktivita nemoci, fekální kalprotektin, kvalita života, telemedicína, ulcerózna kolitídaLiteratura
1. Vora P, Shih DQ, McGovern DP et al. Current concepts on the immunopathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Front Biosci (Elite Ed) 2012; 4: 1451–1477.
2. Yoshida EM. The Crohn’s Disease Activity Index, its derivatives and the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire: a review of instruments to assess Crohn’s disease. Can J Gastroenterol 1999; 13 (1): 65–73.
3. Ogorek CP, Fisher RS. Differentiation between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Med Clin North Am 1994; 78 (6): 1249–1258.
4. van Sommeren S, Janse M, Karjalainen J et al. Extraintestinal manifestations and complications in inflammatory bowel disease: from shared genetics to shared biological pathways. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2014; 20 (6): 987–994. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000032.
5. Loftus EV Jr. Clinical epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease: Incidence, prevalence, and environmental influences. Gastroenterology 2004; 126 (6): 1504–1517.
6. Burisch J, Munkholm P. The epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2015; 50 (8): 942–951. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2015.1014407.
7. Best WR, Becktel JM, Singleton JW et al. Development of a Crohns disease activity index. National Cooperative Crohns Disease Study. Gastroenterology 1976; 70 (3): 439–444.
8. Harvey RF, Bradshaw JM et al. A simple index of Crohn’s disease activity. Lancet 1980; 1 (8167): 514.
9. Stenke E, Hussey S. Ulcerative colitis: management in adults, children and young people (NICE Clinical Guideline CG166). Arch dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2014; 99 (5): 194–197. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305512.
10. Powell-Tuck J, Brown RL, Lennard-Jones JE. A comparison of oral prednisone given as single or multiple daily doses for active proctocolitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 1978; 13 (7): 833–837.
11. Walmsley RS, Ayres RC, Pounder RE et al. A simple clinical colitis activity index. Gut 1998; 43 (1): 29–32.
12. Seo M, Okada M, Yao T et al. An index of disease activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1992; 87 (8): 971–976.
13. Sutherland LR, Martin F, Greer S et al. 5-Aminosalicylic acid enema in the treatment of distal ulcerative colitis, proctosigmoiditis, and proctitis. Gastroenterology 1987; 92: 1894–1898.
14. Schroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. N Engl J Med 1987; 317 (26): 1625–1629.
15. Annese V, Daperno M, Rutter MD et al. European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2013; 7 (12): 982–1018. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.016.
16. Sauter B, Beglinger C, Girardin M et al. Monitoring disease activity and progression in Crohn’s disease. A Swiss perspective on the IBD ahead ’optimised monitoring’ recommendations. Digestion 2014; 89 (4): 299–309. doi: 10.1159/000360283.
17. Garrett JW, Drossman DA. Health status in inflammatory bowel disease. Biological and behavioral considerations. Gastroenterology 1990; 99 (1): 90–96.
18. Guyatt G, Mitchell A, Irvine EJ et al. A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 1989; 96 (3): 804–810.
19. Jowett SL, Seal CJ, Barton JR et al. The short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire is reliable and responsive to clinically important change in ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96 (10): 2921–2928.
20. Judd TA, Day AS, Lemberg DA et al. Update of fecal markers of inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 26 (10): 1493–1499. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06846.x.
21. Desai D, Faubion WA, Sandborn WJ. Review article: biological activity markers in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 25 (3): 247–255.
22. Røseth AG, Schmidt PN, Fagerhol MK. Correlation between faecal excretion of indium-111-labelled granulocytes and calprotectin, a granulocyte marker protein, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1999; 34 (1): 50–54.
23. Moum B, Jahnsen J, Bernklev T. Fecal calprotectin variability in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010; 16 (7): 1091–1092. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21136.
24. Joishy M, Davies I, Ahmed M et al. Fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin as noninvasive markers of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2009; 48 (1): 48–54. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31816533d3.
25. Rogler G, Aldeguer X, Kruis W et al. Concept for a rapid point-of-care calprotectin diagnostic test for diagnosis and disease activity monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: expert clinical opinion. J Crohns Colitis 2013; 7 (8): 670–677. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.02.014.
26. Walker TR, Land ML, Kartashov A et al. Fecal lactoferrin is a sensitive and specific marker of disease activity in children and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2007; 44 (4): 414–422.
27. Schröder O, Naumann M, Shastri Y et al. Prospective evaluation of faecal neutrophil-derived proteins in identifying intestinal inflammation: combination of parameters does not improve diagnostic accuracy of calprotectin. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 26 (7): 1035–1042.
28. Røseth AG, Aadland E, Grzyb K. Normalization of faecal calprotectin: a predictor of mucosal healing in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2004; 39 (10): 1017–1020.
29. D’Incà R, Dal Pont E, Di Leo V et al. Calprotectin and lactoferrin in the assessment of intestinal inflammation and organic disease. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007; 22 (4): 429–437.
30. Sipponen T, Savilahti E, Kolho KL et al. Crohn’s disease activity assessed by fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin: correlation with Crohn’s disease activity index and endoscopic findings. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008; 14 (1): 40–46.
31. Schoepfer AM, Beglinger C, Straumann A et al. Fecal calprotectin correlates more closely with the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD) than CRP, blood leukocytes, and the CDAI. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105 (1): 162–169. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.545.
32. Røseth AG, Aadland E, Grzyb K. Normalization of faecal calprotectin: a predictor of mucosal healing in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2004; 39 (10): 1017–1020.
33. Sipponen T, Bjorkesten CG, Farkkila M et al. Faecal calprotectin and lactoferrin are reliable surrogate markers of endoscopic response during Crohn’s disease treatment. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45 (3): 325–331. doi: 10.3109/00365520903483650.
34. van Rheenen PF, Van de Vijver E, Fidler V. Faecal calprotectin for screening of patients with suspected inflammatory bowel disease: diagnostic meta-analysis. BMJ 2010; 341: c3369. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3369.
35. Costa F, Mumolo MG, Ceccarelli L et al. Calprotectin is a stronger predictive marker of relapse in ulcerative colitis than in Crohn’s disease. Gut 2005; 54 (3); 364–368.
36. Orlando A, Modesto I, Castiglione F et al. The role of calprotectin in predicting endoscopic postsurgical recurrence in asymptomatic Crohn’s disease: a comparison with ultrasound. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2006; 10 (1): 17–22.
37. D’Haens G, Ferrante M, Vermeire S et al. Fecal calprotectin is a surrogate marker for endoscopic lesions in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18 (12); 2218–2224. doi: 10.1002/ibd.22917.
38. Aggio R, Probert C. Future methods for the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis 2014; 32 (4): 463–467. doi: 10.1159/000358153.
39. Bodelier A, Smolinska A, Dalinga J et al. Volatile organic compounds in breath as new test for Crohn‘s disease. United European Gastroenterology Journal 2013; 1 (Suppl 1): A36.
40. Surti B, Spiegel B, Ippoliti A et al. Assessing health status in inflammatory bowel disease using a novel single-item numeric rating scale. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58 (5): 1313–1321. doi: 10.1007/s10620-012-2500-1.
41. Bodger K, Ormerod C, Shackcloth D et al. Development and validation of a rapid, generic measure of disease control from patient’s perspective: the IBD-control questionnaire. Gut 2014; 63 (7): 1092–1102. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305600.
42. Keefer L, Kiebles JL, Taft TH et al. The role of self-efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease management: preliminary validation of a disease-specificmeasure. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011; 17 (2): 614–620. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21314.
43. Alrubaiy L, Rikaby I, Dodds P et al. Systematic review of health-related quality of life measures for imflammatory bowel diseases. J Crohns Colitis 2015; 284–292. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv002.
44. Capalbo SM, Heggem CN. Valuing rural health care: issues of access and quality. Am J Agri Econ 1999; 81 (3): 674–679.
45. Berman M, Fenaughty A. Technology and managed care: patient benefits of telemedicine in a rural health care network. Health Econ 2005; 14 (6): 559–573.
46. Krier M, Kaltenbach T, McQuaid K. Potential use of telemedicine to provide outpatient care for inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106 (12): 2063–2067. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.329.
47. Elkjaer M. E-health: web-guided therapy and disease self-management in ulcerative colitis. Impact on disease outcome, quality of life and compliance. Dan Med J 2012; 59 (7): B4478.
48. Huang VW, Reich KM, Fedorak RN. Distance management of inflammatory bowel disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20 (3): 829–842. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i3.829.
49. Kim ES, Park KS, Cho KB et al. Development of a Web-based, self-reporting symptom diary for Crohn’s disease, and its correlation with the Crohn’s disease activity index: web-based, self-reporting symptom diary for Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 2014; S1873–9946 (14) 00268–2. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2014.09.003.
50. Degens J, Romberg-Camps M, Cilissen M et al. Results from a feasibility study with the telemedicine tool myIBDcoach in the Netherlands. J Crohns Colitis 2014; 8 (Suppl 1): S58. doi: 10.1016/S1873-9946 (14) 60115-X.
51. Atreja A, Khan S, Rogers JD et al. Impact of the Mobile healthPROMISE platform on the quality of care and quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: study protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2015; 4 (1): e23. doi: 10.2196/resprot.4042.