Positioning and Usefulness of Biomarkers in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Mucosal healing (MH) was proposed to be an ideal treatment goal for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Instead of endoscopy to confirm MH, biomarkers are frequently used and have become an indispensable modality for the clinical examination of patients with IBD.

Common biomarkers of IBD include C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies, leucine-rich α2 glycoprotein, fecal calprotectin (FCP), and the fecal immunochemical test. Biomarkers play five major roles in the management of IBD: (1) diagnosing and distinguishing between IBD and non-IBD or ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease; (2) predicting treatment response, especially before administrating biologics; (3) monitoring and grasping endoscopic or histological disease activity; (4) replacing endoscopy for diagnosing MH, including endoscopic and histological remission; and (5) predicting recurrence before disease activity appears through symptoms. Many reports have demonstrated the usefulness of CRP and FCP for those five roles; however, they have limitations for diagnosing MH or predicting treatment response. In general, FCP has better ability in those positions than CRP; additionally, leucine-rich α2 glycoprotein can diagnose endoscopic disease activity better than CRP. The novel biomarker, prostaglandin E-major urinary metabolite, and anti-αvβ6 antibody are expected to be noninvasive and reliable biomarkers; however, more evidence is required for future studies. Oncostatin M and microRNA are also prospects, in addition to other familiar and novel biomarkers.

Each biomarker has a useful feature; therefore, we should consider their features and use appropriate biomarkers for the five roles to enable noninvasive and smooth management of IBD.