Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 60, Issue 6, pp 1755–1760 | Cite as

No Association Between Serum Adenosine Deaminase Activity and Disease Activity in Crohn’s Disease

  • Mahmoud Sajjadi
  • Ali Gholamrezaei
  • Nasser Ebrahimi Daryani
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Adenosine deaminase activity is proposed as a marker of inflammation in some inflammatory conditions.

Aims

To investigate the association of serum adenosine deaminase activity and disease activity in Crohn’s disease patients.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study, 30 consecutive known cases of Crohn’s disease (15 with active disease and 15 in remission) referring to a university hospital in Tehran (Iran) and 15 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were studied. Disease activity was assessed using the Crohn’s disease activity index (cutoff >150). Total serum adenosine deaminase activity, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin were evaluated in patients. Serum adenosine deaminase activity was measured in controls.

Results

Mean age of the patients was 36.8 ± 12.6 years, and 56.7 % were male. Serum adenosine deaminase activity in patients with active disease, patients in remission, and controls was 12.3 ± 5.9, 14.6 ± 6.2, and 11.9 ± 6.4 U/L, respectively (P = 0.458). Compared with patients in remission, those with active disease had higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate (40.4 ± 30.6 vs. 16.9 ± 16.0 mm/h, P = 0.014) and higher frequency of positive C-reactive protein (66.6 vs. 13.3 %, P = 0.004) and positive fecal calprotectin tests (86.6 vs. 33.3 %, P = 0.004). Serum adenosine deaminase activity was not correlated with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (r = 0.05, P = 0.761) and was not different between patients with positive and negative C-reactive protein (12.2 ± 5.4 vs. 14.2 ± 6.5 U/L, P = 0.393) and fecal calprotectin tests (11.7 ± 5.3 vs. 16.0 ± 6.5 U/L, P = 0.063).

Conclusions

In patients with Crohn’s disease, serum adenosine deaminase activity is not associated with clinical disease activity or with other inflammation markers and cannot be suggested as an inflammation marker.

Keywords

Inflammatory bowel diseases Crohn’s disease Adenosine deaminase Fecal calprotectin Biological markers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The sponsor had no role in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Authors contributions were as follows: MS and NED participated in study design, data collection, and editing the manuscript. AGh did data analysis and prepared the manuscript draft. All authors studied, revised, and approved the final version of manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Abraham C, Cho JH. Inflammatory bowel disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2066–2078.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nikolaus S, Schreiber S. Diagnostics of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:1670–1689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mowat C, Cole A, Windsor A, et al. Guidelines for the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults. Gut. 2011;60:571–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vermeire S, Van AG, Rutgeerts P. Laboratory markers in IBD: useful, magic, or unnecessary toys? Gut. 2006;55:426–431.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Best WR, Becktel JM, Singleton JW, et al. Development of a Crohn’s disease activity index. National Cooperative Crohn’s Disease Study. Gastroenterology. 1976;70:439–444.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walmsley RS, Ayres RC, Pounder RE, et al. A simple clinical colitis activity index. Gut. 1998;43:29–32.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denis MA, Reenaers C, Fontaine F, et al. Assessment of endoscopic activity index and biological inflammatory markers in clinically active Crohn’s disease with normal C-reactive protein serum level. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;13:1100–1105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;14:40–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Efthymiou A, Viazis N, Mantzaris G, et al. Does clinical response correlate with mucosal healing in patients with Crohn’s disease of the small bowel? A prospective, case-series study using wireless capsule endoscopy. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008;14:1542–1547.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Regueiro M, Kip KE, Schraut W, et al. Crohn’s disease activity index does not correlate with endoscopic recurrence one year after ileocolonic resection. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17:118–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schoepfer AM, Beglinger C, Straumann A, et al. Ulcerative colitis: correlation of the Rachmilewitz endoscopic activity index with fecal calprotectin, clinical activity, C-reactive protein, and blood leukocytes. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2009;15:1851–1858.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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;105:162–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Rheenen PF. Role of fecal calprotectin testing to predict relapse in teenagers with inflammatory bowel disease who report full disease control. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18:2018–2025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoepfer AM, Beglinger C, Straumann A, et al. Fecal calprotectin more accurately reflects endoscopic activity of ulcerative colitis than the Lichtiger Index, C-reactive protein, platelets, hemoglobin, and blood leukocytes. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:332–341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fefferman DS, Farrell RJ. Endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: indications, surveillance, and use in clinical practice. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:11–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kopylov U, Rosenfeld G, Bressler B, et al. Clinical utility of fecal biomarkers for the diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20:742–756.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin JF, Chen JM, Zuo JH, et al. Meta-analysis: fecal calprotectin for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease activity. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20:1407–1415.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keohane J, O’Mahony C, O’Mahony L, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome-type symptoms in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a real association or reflection of occult inflammation? Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1788–1794.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Antonioli L, Colucci R, La MC, et al. Adenosine deaminase in the modulation of immune system and its potential as a novel target for treatment of inflammatory disorders. Curr Drug Targets. 2012;13:842–862.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cronstein BN. Adenosine, an endogenous anti-inflammatory agent. J Appl Physiol. 1994;76:5–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sari RA, Taysi S, Yilmaz O, et al. Correlation of serum levels of adenosine deaminase activity and its isoenzymes with disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21:87–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saghiri R, Ghashghai N, Movaseghi S, et al. Serum adenosine deaminase activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a study based on ADA1 and ADA2 isoenzymes pattern. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32:1633–1638.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cakal B, Beyazit Y, Koklu S, et al. Elevated adenosine deaminase levels in celiac disease. J Clin Lab Anal. 2010;24:323–326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibis M, Koklu S, Yilmaz FM, et al. Serum adenosine deaminase levels in pancreatic diseases. Pancreatology. 2007;7:526–530.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hitoglou S, Hatzistilianou M, Gougoustamou D, et al. Adenosine deaminase activity and its isoenzyme pattern in patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Rheumatol. 2001;20:411–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maor I, Rainis T, Lanir A, et al. Adenosine deaminase activity in patients with Crohn’s disease: distinction between active and nonactive disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;23:598–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beyazit Y, Koklu S, Tas A, et al. Serum adenosine deaminase activity as a predictor of disease severity in ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2012;6:102–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Giusti G, Galanti B. Colorimetric method. In: Bergmeyer HU, ed. Methods of enzymatic analysis. Weinheim: Verlag Chemie; 1984:315–323.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Daperno M, Castiglione F, de Ridder L, et al. Results of the 2nd part Scientific Workshop of the ECCO. II: measures and markers of prediction to achieve, detect, and monitor intestinal healing in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2011;5:484–498.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schoepfer AM, Vavricka S, Zahnd-Straumann N, et al. Monitoring inflammatory bowel disease activity: clinical activity is judged to be more relevant than endoscopic severity or biomarkers. J Crohns Colitis.. 2012;6:412–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Rheenen PF. Van d, V, Fidler V. Faecal calprotectin for screening of patients with suspected inflammatory bowel disease: diagnostic meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;341:c3369.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewis JD. The utility of biomarkers in the diagnosis and therapy of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1817–1826.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abraham BP, Kane S. Fecal markers: calprotectin and lactoferrin. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2012;41:483–495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Waugh N, Cummins E, Royle P, et al. Faecal calprotectin testing for differentiating amongst inflammatory and non-inflammatory bowel diseases: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:xv–xix, 1–211.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Frode TS, Medeiros YS. Myeloperoxidase and adenosine-deaminase levels in the pleural fluid leakage induced by carrageenan in the mouse model of pleurisy. Mediators Inflamm. 2001;10:223–227.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zavialov AV, Gracia E, Glaichenhaus N, et al. Human adenosine deaminase 2 induces differentiation of monocytes into macrophages and stimulates proliferation of T helper cells and macrophages. J Leukoc Biol. 2010;88:279–290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zamani B, Jamali R, Jamali A. Serum adenosine deaminase may predict disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32:1967–1975.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ye JH, Rajendran VM. Adenosine: an immune modulator of inflammatory bowel diseases. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:4491–4498.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Antonioli L, Fornai M, Colucci R, et al. Inhibition of adenosine deaminase attenuates inflammation in experimental colitis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007;322:435–442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahmoud Sajjadi
    • 1
  • Ali Gholamrezaei
    • 2
  • Nasser Ebrahimi Daryani
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Poursina Hakim Research InstituteIsfahanIran
  3. 3.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Imam Khomeini HospitalTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations