P364 Faecal calprotectin testing in patients presenting with lower gastrointestinal symptoms; a retrospective primary care study in the United Kingdom

N Umar,S Wambua,N J Adderley,S Haroon,N Trudgill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0494

2024-01-01

Journal of Crohn's and Colitis

Abstract:Abstract Background Faecal calprotectin (FC) is of value in differentiating Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) from other causes of lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and is recommended in national guidance. This study aims to examine the role of and factors associated with faecal calprotectin requesting in primary care. Methods Retrospective open cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD Aurum) of adults aged 18 years and above with lower GI symptoms between 2015 and 2019. FC requested 30 days before to 3 months after a lower GI symptom record in primary care were included. Logistic regression model was used to explore patient level factors associated with FC testing. Referral pathways and outcomes in terms of IBD diagnoses of patients with and without FC testing were also examined. Results Of 741,190 symptomatic patients, only 18,320 (2.5%) patients had a FC requested in primary care: median age 38.3 (IQR 28.9-50.7); 51.4% females. The percentage of FC requests in symptomatic patients increased from 0.02% in 2010 to 4.4% in 2019 (p=0.001). FC value of <50 ug/g and 50-200 ug/g were predominantly seen in patients with abdominal pain (42.1% and 37.9% respectively) while FC > 200 ug/g was predominantly seen in patients with diarrhoea (45.3%). The only patients with a significant risk of IBD with a FC 50-200ug/g were patients with rectal bleeding (8%). Factors associated with less FC requesting included: increasing age (>70 years aOR 0.16 ( 95% CI 0.15-0.18); female (0.89,0.86-0.92); Black (0.61, 0.56-0.66) or Asian (0.75, 0.70-0.80) ethnicity; obesity (0.89,0.85-0.93); lower socioeconomic status (0.91,0.86-0.98); comorbidity score >2 (0.73,0.68-0.79); and current smoking (0.89,0.85-0.92). Patients with change in bowel habit (7.31,6.90-7.75); rectal bleeding (2.04,1.95-2.13); diarrhoea (2.88,2.78-2.99) as a presenting symptom compared to abdominal pain and ex-smokers (1.06,1.03-1.11) had more FC requests. Of patients referred with a FC >200 ug/g, 21.5% were diagnosed with IBD but only 2.9% of patients with a FC 50-200ug/g. 27.8% patients with a normal FC test result were still referred to secondary care, of which only 0.4% had IBD. Conclusion Despite an increase in FC requests in recent years, only 4.4% of patients with relevant lower GI symptoms had an FC requested in primary care as recommended. Despite a negative FC test, 27.8% of patients were still referred to secondary care with very few patients diagnosed with IBD (0.4%).

gastroenterology & hepatology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper primarily explores the role and associated factors of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in assessing patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care in the UK. The background of the study indicates that FC testing helps distinguish Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) from other causes of lower gastrointestinal symptoms and is recommended in national guidelines. The aim of the study is to examine the application of FC testing in primary care and the patient factors associated with it.

Using a retrospective cohort study method, data from adult patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms between 2015 and 2019 were analyzed. The results showed that among 741,190 patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms, only 2.5% underwent FC testing. Additionally, the study observed that the proportion of FC test requests increased from 0.02% in 2010 to 4.4% in 2019.

The study further revealed the association between different symptoms and FC levels, such as lower FC values (<50 μg/g) mainly appearing in patients with abdominal pain, while higher FC values (>200 μg/g) were primarily found in patients with diarrhea. The study also analyzed factors influencing FC test requests, including age, gender, ethnicity, obesity, socioeconomic status, comorbid conditions, etc.

The conclusion mentions that although FC test requests have increased in recent years, there is still significant room for improvement in primary care, as only 4.4% of relevant patients underwent FC testing. Furthermore, even if the FC test result was negative, 27.8% of patients were still referred to secondary care, but only 0.4% were ultimately diagnosed with IBD. This suggests that even with normal FC test results, other factors need to be considered to decide whether further examination is necessary.