Effect of Brain-Gut Behavioral Treatments on Abdominal Pain in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some brain-gut behavioral treatments (BGBTs) are beneficial for global symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). United States management guidelines suggest their use in patients with persistent abdominal pain, but their specific effect on this symptom has not been assessed systematically. METHODS: We searched the literature through December 16, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing efficacy of BGBTs for adults with IBS, compared with each other or a control intervention. Trials provided an assessment of abdominal pain resolution or improvement at treatment completion. We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures and reporting pooled relative risks (RRs) of abdominal pain not improving with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), ranking therapies according to the P score. RESULTS: We identified 42 eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 5220 participants. After treatment completion, the BGBTs with the largest numbers of trials and patients recruited demonstrating efficacy for abdominal pain, specifically, included self-guided/minimal contact cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95; P score, 0.58), face-to-face multicomponent behavioral therapy (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; P score, 0.56), and face-to-face gut-directed hypnotherapy (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96; P score, 0.49). Among trials recruiting only patients with refractory global IBS symptoms, group CBT was more efficacious than routine care for abdominal pain, but no other significant differences were detected. No trials were low risk of bias across all domains, and there was evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: Several BGBTs, including self-guided/minimal contact CBT, face-to-face multicomponent behavioral therapy, and face-to-face gut-directed hypnotherapy may be efficacious for abdominal pain in IBS, although none was superior to another.

Novel Symptom Subgroups in Individuals With Irritable Bowel Syndrome Predict Disease Impact and Burden.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current classification systems based on bowel habit fail to capture the multidimensional nature of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We previously derived and validated a classification system, using latent class analysis, incorporating factors beyond bowel habit. We applied this in another cohort of people with IBS to assess its ability to capture the impact of IBS on the individual, the health care system, and society. METHODS: We collected demographic, symptom, and psychological health data from adults in the community self-identifying as having IBS, and meeting Rome IV criteria. We applied our latent class analysis model to identify the 7 subgroups (clusters) described previously, based on overall gastrointestinal symptom severity and psychological burden. We assessed quality of life, health care costs (£1 = $1.20), employment status, annual income, work productivity, and ability to perform work duties in each cluster. RESULTS: Of 1278 responders, 752 (58.8%) met Rome IV criteria. The 7-cluster model fit the data well. The patients in the 4 clusters with the highest psychological burden, and particularly those in cluster 6 with high overall gastrointestinal symptom severity and high psychological burden, showed lower educational levels, higher gastrointestinal symptom-specific anxiety, were more likely to have consulted a gastroenterologist, and used more drugs for IBS. IBS-related and generic quality of life were impaired significantly in these 4 clusters and significantly fewer individuals reported earning ≥£30,000 per year. Productivity and the ability to work, manage at home, engage in social and private leisure activities, and maintain close relationships all were impacted significantly, and IBS-related health care costs over the previous 12 months were highest in these 4 clusters. In those in cluster 6, costs were more than £1000 per person per year. CONCLUSIONS: Our clusters identify groups of individuals with significant impairments in quality of life, earning potential, and ability to work and function socially, who are high utilizers of health care.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Efficacy of Mesalamine in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) demonstrate low-grade inflammation in the intestine. Mesalamine, which has anti-inflammatory effects, may be an efficacious treatment for IBS, but studies are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of mesalamine in IBS. METHODS: We searched the medical literature up to September 14, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mesalamine in IBS. We judged efficacy and safety using dichotomous assessments of effect on global IBS symptoms, abdominal pain, bowel habit or stool frequency, and occurrence of any adverse event. We pooled data using a random effects model, with efficacy and safety reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 8 eligible RCTs (820 patients). Mesalamine was more efficacious than placebo for global IBS symptoms (RR of global symptoms not improving, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.95; number needed to treat = 10; 95% CI, 6-27), but not for abdominal pain or bowel habit or stool frequency. Subgroup analyses demonstrated efficacy of mesalamine in IBS with diarrhea for global IBS symptoms (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99), but not patients with other predominant bowel habits or those with post-infection IBS. Adverse event rates were no higher with mesalamine (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.63) but were reported in only 5 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalamine may be modestly efficacious for global symptoms in IBS, particularly IBS with diarrhea, but quality of evidence was low. Adequately powered high quality RCTs of mesalamine in IBS are needed.

Assessing Diagnostic Performance of Modifications to the Rome IV Criteria for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

The gold standard symptom-based criteria for diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are the Rome IV criteria.1 These are more restrictive than their predecessor, Rome III, because the cardinal feature required to meet criteria for IBS was changed to presence of abdominal pain alone, rather than abdominal pain or discomfort.2 This change was made because discomfort was believed to be an ambiguous term, with no equivalent in some languages. In addition, symptom frequency required for the presence of abdominal pain was increased to 1 day per week from 2 to 3 days per month. This has led to reduced sensitivity for detecting IBS and a 50% decrease in the prevalence of the disorder in the community.3,4 In a cross-sectional survey applying both Rome IV and III criteria to people living with IBS, 89% of those with Rome III-defined IBS not meeting Rome IV criteria did not meet Rome IV criteria because of this change in pain frequency.5 Previous iterations of the Rome criteria have performed only modestly in predicting a diagnosis of IBS.6-8 However, in a validation study, the Rome IV criteria outperformed Rome III,9 largely because their more restrictive nature made them more specific than Rome III. We assessed whether modifications to the Rome IV criteria led to a better trade-off between sensitivity and specificity.

Efficacy of Probiotics in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled. RESULTS: We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses.

Efficacy and Safety of Drugs for Gastroparesis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although there have been multiple drugs tested in gastroparesis, their relative efficacy and safety are unknown. We evaluated this in a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched the literature to September 7, 2022. We judged the efficacy of drugs based on global symptoms of gastroparesis; individual symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness; and safety according to total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal. We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures and reporting pooled relative risks (RRs) of not improving with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), ranking drugs according to P-score. RESULTS: We identified 29 RCTs (3772 patients). Based on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57; P-score = .99) followed by domperidone (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98; P-score = .76). No other drug was superior to placebo. Only 2 drug classes were efficacious: in rank order, oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77; P-score = .96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93; P-score = .83). For individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-1.00; P-score = .95), fullness (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.35-1.28; P-score = .86), and bloating (RR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.93; P-score = .97), based on only 1 small trial. Only prucalopride was more likely to be associated with adverse events than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In a network meta-analysis, oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists were more efficacious than placebo for gastroparesis, but confidence in the evidence was low to moderate for most comparisons. There is an unmet need for efficacious therapies for gastroparesis.

Novel Irritable Bowel Syndrome Subgroups are Reproducible in the Global Adult Population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current classification systems for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) based on bowel habit do not consider psychological impact. We validated a classification model in a UK population with confirmed IBS, using latent class analysis, incorporating psychological factors. We applied this model in the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiological Survey (RFGES), assessing impact of IBS on the individual and the health care system, and examining reproducibility. METHODS: We applied our model to 2195 individuals in the RFGES with Rome IV-defined IBS. As described previously, we identified 7 clusters, based on gastrointestinal symptom severity and psychological burden. We assessed demographics, health care-seeking, symptom severity, and quality of life in each. We also used the RFGES to derive a new model, examining whether the broader concepts of our original model were replicated, in terms of breakdown and characteristics of identified clusters. RESULTS: All 7 clusters were identified. Those in clusters with highest psychological burden, and particularly cluster 6 with high overall gastrointestinal symptom severity, were more often female, exhibited higher levels of health care-seeking, were more likely to have undergone previous abdominal surgeries, and had higher symptom severity and lower quality of life (P < .001 for trend for all). When deriving a new model, the best solution consisted of 10 clusters, although at least 2 seemed to be duplicates, and almost all mapped on to the previous clusters. CONCLUSIONS: Even in the community, our original clusters derived from patients with physician-confirmed IBS identified groups of individuals with significantly higher rates of health care-seeking and abdominal surgery, more severe symptoms, and impairments in quality of life.

Efficacy of biological therapies and small molecules in induction and maintenance of remission in luminal Crohn's disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There are numerous biological therapies and small molecules licensed for luminal Crohn's disease (CD), but these are often studied in placebo-controlled trials, meaning relative efficacy is uncertain. We examined this in a network meta-analysis. DESIGN: We searched the literature to 1 July 2022, judging efficacy according to induction of clinical remission, clinical response and maintenance of clinical remission, and according to previous exposure or non-exposure to biologics. We used a random effects model and reported data as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs, ranking drugs according to p-score. RESULTS: We identified 25 induction of remission trials (8720 patients). Based on failure to achieve clinical remission, infliximab 5 mg/kg ranked first versus placebo (RR=0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.79, p-score 0.95), with risankizumab 600 mg second and upadacitinib 45 mg once daily third. However, risankizumab 600 mg ranked first for clinical remission in biologic-naïve (RR=0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.85, p-score 0.78) and in biologic-exposed patients (RR=0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82, p-score 0.92). In 15 maintenance of remission trials (4016 patients), based on relapse of disease activity, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily ranked first (RR=0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72, p-score 0.93) with adalimumab 40 mg weekly second, and infliximab 10 mg/kg 8-weekly third. Adalimumab 40 mg weekly ranked first in biologic-naïve patients (RR=0.59, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.73, p-score 0.86), and vedolizumab 108 mg 2-weekly first in biologic-exposed (RR=0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.86, p-score 0.82). CONCLUSION: In a network meta-analysis, infliximab 5 mg/kg ranked first for induction of clinical remission in all patients with luminal CD, but risankizumab 600 mg was first in biologic-naïve and biologic-exposed patients. Upadacitinib 30 mg once daily ranked first for maintenance of remission.

Comparison of drugs for active eosinophilic oesophagitis: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no recommendation regarding preferred drugs for active eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) because their relative efficacy is unclear. We conducted an up-to-date network meta-analysis to compare proton pump inhibitors, off-label and EoE-specific topical steroids, and biologics in EoE. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy of all drugs versus each other, or placebo, in adults and adolescents with active EoE. Results were reported as pooled relative risks with 95% CIs to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with drugs ranked according to P score RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were eligible for systematic review. Of these, 15 studies containing 1813 subjects with EoE reported extractable data for the network meta-analysis. For histological remission defined as ≤6 eosinophils/high-power field (HPF), lirentelimab 1 mg/kg monthly ranked first. For histological remission defined as ≤15 eosinophils/HPF, budesonide orally disintegrating tablet (BOT) 1 mg two times per day ranked first. For failure to achieve symptom improvement, BOT 1 mg two times per day and budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2 mg two times per day were significantly more efficacious than placebo. For failure to achieve endoscopic improvement based on the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score, BOT 1 mg two times per day and BOS 1 mg two times per day or 2 mg two times per day were significantly more efficacious than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Although this network meta-analysis supports the efficacy of most available drugs over placebo for EoE treatment, significant heterogeneity in eligibility criteria and outcome measures among available trials hampers the establishment of a solid therapeutic hierarchy.

Response and Adverse Event Rates With Placebo in Gastroparesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Multiple drugs have been used to treat gastroparesis symptoms, yet their therapeutic benefits are poorly understood partly due to lack of insight into response and adverse event rates with placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We evaluated these issues systematically in drug trials for gastroparesis. METHODS: We searched the medical literature through August 2, 2022 to identify RCTs comparing active drug with placebo in patients with gastroparesis. We assessed placebo response rates according to at least one of the following endpoints: improvement according to a composite outcome, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness, as well as total adverse events, and adverse events leading to withdrawal. We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses with dropouts assumed to be treatment failures. We pooled placebo response and adverse event rates using a random effects model and expressed as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were eligible. Among 23 trials reporting a composite endpoint of improvement, the pooled placebo response rate was 29.3% (95% CI, 23.7%-35.2%). Pooled placebo response rates were higher in idiopathic compared with diabetic gastroparesis (34.2% vs 28.1%), among trials that did not use validated symptom questionnaires (31.2% vs 27.4%), and in RCTs of shorter duration (<4 weeks, 32.6% vs ≥9 weeks, 23.2%). Adverse events occurred in 33.8% (95% CI, 26.4%-41.8%) of patients with placebo, in 27 trials, and were less common in idiopathic compared with diabetic gastroparesis (17.9% vs 43.4%), trials of shorter duration (<4 weeks, 33.7% vs ≥9 weeks, 40.7%), and trials with lower randomization ratios of active drug to placebo (1:1, 26.7% vs 3:1, 50.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis assessed placebo response and adverse event rates in gastroparesis. To accurately assess therapeutic gain, future trials should be a minimum of 8 weeks duration, use validated questionnaires, and distinguish gastroparesis subtypes.

A Diagnosis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome Using Rome IV Criteria and Limited Investigations is Durable in Secondary Care.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a positive diagnosis, made using symptom-based criteria and limited, judicious, investigation. However, this may lead to uncertainty on the part of clinicians regarding potential for a missed diagnosis of organic gastrointestinal disease. Few studies have examined durability of a diagnosis of IBS, and none have used the current gold standard to diagnose IBS, the Rome IV criteria. METHODS: We collected complete symptom data from 373 well-characterized adults meeting Rome IV criteria for IBS referred to a single UK clinic between September 2016 and March 2020. All patients underwent relatively standardized work-up to exclude relevant organic disease before diagnosis. We followed these individuals up to December 2022, assessing rates of rereferral, reinvestigation, and missed organic gastrointestinal disease. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years per patient (total follow-up in all patients, 1565 years), 62 (16.6%) patients were rereferred. Of these, 35 (56.5%) were rereferred for IBS and 27 (43.5%) for other gastrointestinal symptoms. Among the 35 rereferred with IBS this was caused by a change in symptoms in only 5 (14.3%). Reinvestigation was undertaken in 21 (60.0%) of 35 rereferred with IBS and 22 (81.5%) of 27 rereferred with other symptoms (P = .12). Only 4 (9.3% of those reinvestigated and 1.1% of the entire cohort) new cases of relevant organic disease, which may have been responsible for IBS symptoms at baseline, were identified (1 case of chronic calcific pancreatitis among those rereferred with IBS and 1 case each of inflammatory bowel disease-unclassified, moderate bile acid diarrhea, and small bowel obstruction among those rereferred with other gastrointestinal symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: Despite rereferral for gastrointestinal symptoms among 1 in 6 patients overall, with almost 10% rereferred with ongoing IBS symptoms, and substantial reinvestigation rates, missed organic gastrointestinal disease occurred in only 1%. A diagnosis of Rome IV IBS after limited investigation is safe and durable.

Characteristics and Effect of Anxiety and Depression Trajectories in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety or depression, are associated with adverse clinical outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We report trajectories of these symptoms in IBD, patient characteristics associated with different trajectories, and effects on healthcare utilization and prognosis. METHODS: We collected demographic, symptom, psychological, and quality-of-life data, with questionnaires at 3-month intervals, over 12 months of follow-up. We collected healthcare utilization and IBD outcomes through notes review. We compared characteristics of those with persistently normal or improving anxiety or depression scores with those with persistently abnormal or worsening scores and the number of flares, glucocorticosteroid prescriptions, escalations of therapy, hospitalizations, or intestinal resections due to IBD activity. RESULTS: Among 771 and 777 patients, respectively, worsening or persistently abnormal anxiety or depression scores were associated with increased antidepressant (28.6% vs 12.3% anxiety, 35.8% vs 10.1% depression, P < 0.001) and opiate use (19.0% vs 7.8% anxiety, P = 0.001 and 34.0% vs 7.4% depression, P < 0.001), compared with those with persistently normal or improving scores. These individuals were also more likely to have been diagnosed with IBD in the last 12 months (16.3% vs 5.0% anxiety, P = 0.001, and 15.1% vs 5.5% depression, P = 0.006), to have clinically active disease at baseline (57.1% vs 26.6% anxiety and 71.7% vs 29.1% depression, P < 0.001) and lower quality-of-life scores ( P < 0.001). Individuals with worsening or persistently abnormal trajectories of anxiety or depression required significantly more outpatient appointments, radiological investigations, and endoscopic procedures for IBD-related symptoms. DISCUSSION: In this 12-month follow-up study, patients with IBD with worsening or persistently high anxiety or depression scores were higher utilizers of health care but were not at an increased risk of future adverse disease outcomes.

Efficacy of a low FODMAP diet in irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAP) is recommended for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), if general lifestyle and dietary advice fails. However, although the impact of a low FODMAP diet on individual IBS symptoms has been examined in some randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there has been no recent systematic assessment, and individual trials have studied numerous alternative or control interventions, meaning the best comparator is unclear. We performed a network meta-analysis addressing these uncertainties. DESIGN: We searched the medical literature through to 2 April 2021 to identify RCTs of a low FODMAP diet in IBS. Efficacy was judged using dichotomous assessment of improvement in global IBS symptoms or improvement in individual IBS symptoms, including abdominal pain, abdominal bloating or distension, and bowel habit. Data were pooled using a random effects model, with efficacy reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs, and interventions ranked according to their P-score. RESULTS: We identified 13 eligible RCTs (944 patients). Based on failure to achieve an improvement in global IBS symptoms, a low FODMAP diet ranked first vs habitual diet (RR of symptoms not improving=0.67; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, P-score=0.99), and was superior to all other interventions. Low FODMAP diet ranked first for abdominal pain severity, abdominal bloating or distension severity and bowel habit, although for the latter it was not superior to any other intervention. A low FODMAP diet was superior to British Dietetic Association (BDA)/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) dietary advice for abdominal bloating or distension (RR=0.72; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94). BDA/NICE dietary advice was not superior to any other intervention in any analysis. CONCLUSION: In a network analysis, low FODMAP diet ranked first for all endpoints studied. However, most trials were based in secondary or tertiary care and did not study effects of FODMAP reintroduction and personalisation on symptoms.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of functional dyspepsia.

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder of gut-brain interaction, affecting approximately 7% of individuals in the community, with most patients managed in primary care. The last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline for the management of dyspepsia was published in 1996. In the interim, substantial advances have been made in understanding the complex pathophysiology of FD, and there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning its diagnosis and classification, with the advent of the Rome IV criteria, and management. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of patients. The approach to investigating the patient presenting with dyspepsia is discussed, and efficacy of drugs in FD summarised based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of pairwise and network meta-analyses. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. These provide both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, in this guideline, we consider novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need and priorities for future research.

Placebo Response Rates in Trials of Licensed Drugs for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation or Diarrhea: Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are several licensed drugs for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) that have proven efficacy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but placebo response rates are high. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of licensed drugs to estimate magnitude of placebo response rate according to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endpoints and to assess how this varies with stringency of the endpoint used to define response. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE CLASSIC and EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (through January 2021) to identify RCTs comparing licensed drugs with placebo in adult IBS patients. Studies assessed efficacy according to at least one of composite response, abdominal pain response, or stool response. Data were extracted as intention-to-treat analyses, with dropouts assumed to be treatment failures and pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: There were 17 RCTs of licensed drugs versus placebo in IBS with constipation (4603 patients placebo) and 17 trials in IBS with diarrhea (3908 patients placebo). In IBS with constipation, according to FDA criteria, pooled composite, abdominal pain, and stool response rates with placebo over ≥6 of 12 weeks were 18.9%, 34.6%, and 30.1%, respectively. Evaluating response rates over ≥9 of 12 weeks led to placebo response rates of 4.3% for the composite endpoint, 24.5% for abdominal pain, and 7.7% for stool. In IBS with diarrhea, pooled placebo response rates according to FDA criteria were 16.2% for the composite endpoint, 40.2% for abdominal pain, and 16.2% for stool. Increasing the threshold used to define abdominal pain response from ≥30% improvement to ≥40% or ≥50% led to lower placebo response rates of 34.5% and 23.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Future RCTs should adhere to current FDA-recommended endpoints for IBS because these lead to lower placebo response rates. However, consideration should be given to further refining some of these to better differentiate between active drug and placebo.

Natural History and Disease Impact of Rome IV Vs Rome III Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Longitudinal Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional bowel disorder diagnosed using the Rome criteria, which have evolved since their original description 30 years ago. Little is known about the effects on the natural history of IBS of moving to the latest iteration, Rome IV, from the previous Rome III criteria. We conducted a 12-month longitudinal follow-up study to examine this. METHODS: We collected complete demographic, symptom, mood, and psychological health data at baseline from 1097 adults who self-identified as having IBS and met either Rome IV or Rome III criteria. At 12 months, we collected data regarding IBS symptom severity and impact, consultation behavior, treatments commenced, and psychological health. We examined whether subsequent disease behavior in Rome IV- or Rome III-defined IBS differed. RESULTS: At 12 months, 638 (58.2%) of the 1097 participants were followed up successfully. Of these, 452 met Rome IV criteria and 186 met Rome III criteria at baseline. During the 12-month study period, individuals with Rome IV IBS were significantly more likely to have seen a primary care physician (44.7% vs 28.5%; P < .001) or a gastroenterologist (26.3% vs 12.4%; P < .001) for their IBS symptoms, were significantly more likely to have commenced a new treatment (73.0% vs 60.2%; P = .001), and cycled through significantly more treatments (P = .007), for their IBS compared with those with Rome III IBS. At follow-up evaluation, individuals with Rome IV IBS had more severe symptoms, which had a significantly greater impact on activities of daily living, were more likely to report continuous abdominal pain, and a higher proportion showed poor psychological health, compared with those with Rome III IBS (P < .001 for all analyses). CONCLUSIONS: The natural history of IBS defined according to Rome IV criteria is more severe than that of Rome III-defined IBS. This has important implications for future treatment trials in IBS.

Overlap of Rome IV Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Functional Dyspepsia and Effect on Natural History: A Longitudinal Follow-Up Study.

OBJECTIVES: Disorders of gut-brain interaction, such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional dyspepsia (FD), frequently overlap, but the impact of this on the natural history is unknown. We examined this issue in a longitudinal follow-up study conducted in a large cohort of individuals. METHODS: We collected complete demographic, symptom, mood, and psychological health data from 1374 adults who self-identified as having IBS. We applied the Rome IV criteria to examine what proportion met criteria for IBS and FD, as well as the degree of overlap between them. At 12 months, we collected data regarding IBS symptom severity and impact, consultation behavior, treatments commenced, and psychological health according to degree of overlap between IBS and FD. RESULTS: Overall, 807 individuals met the Rome IV criteria for IBS at baseline and provided complete data. At study entry, overlap of FD occurred in 446 (55.3%) people who met Rome IV criteria for IBS. At 12 months, 451 (55.9%) individuals were successfully followed up. The proportion of individuals consulting their primary care physician (P = .001) or a gastroenterologist (P < .001) because of their IBS was significantly higher in those with overlap of IBS and FD, and the number of new IBS treatments commenced was significantly higher (P = .007). Those with overlap of IBS and FD reported significantly more severe IBS symptoms (P < .001), continuous abdominal pain, and that their IBS symptoms limited normal daily activities ≥50% of the time. Finally, those with overlap were more likely to report abnormal anxiety and depression scores at 12 months compared with those with IBS alone, and to have higher levels of somatization (P < .001 for all analyses). CONCLUSIONS: The natural history of people with IBS with overlap FD defined according to Rome IV criteria is more severe than those with IBS alone. This has important implications for future treatment trials in IBS.

Efficacy of biological therapies and small molecules in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Biological therapies and small molecules continue to be evaluated in moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis, but are often studied in placebo-controlled trials, meaning their relative efficacy and safety is unknown. We examined this in a network meta-analysis. DESIGN: We searched the literature to October 2021 to identify eligible trials. We judged efficacy using clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, or clinical response, and according to previous exposure or non-exposure to antitumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapy. We also assessed safety. We used a random effects model and reported data as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Interventions were ranked according to their P-score. RESULTS: We identified 28 trials (12 504 patients). Based on failure to achieve clinical remission, upadacitinib 45 mg once daily ranked first versus placebo (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.80, P-score 0.98), with infliximab 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg second and third, respectively. Upadacitinib ranked first for clinical remission in both patients naïve to anti-TNF-α drugs (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.78, P-score 0.99) and previously exposed (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.85, P-score 0.99). Upadacitinib was superior to almost all other drugs in these analyses. Based on failure to achieve endoscopic improvement infliximab 10 mg/kg ranked first (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.72, P-score 0.97), with upadacitinib 45 mg once daily, second, and infliximab 5 mg/kg third. Upadacitinib was more likely to lead to adverse events, but serious adverse events were no more frequent, and withdrawals due to adverse events were significantly lower than with placebo. Infections were significantly more likely with tofacitinib than placebo (RR 1.41; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.91). CONCLUSION: In a network meta-analysis, upadacitinib 45 mg once daily ranked first for clinical remission in all patients, patients naïve to anti-TNF-α drugs and patients previously exposed. Infliximab 10 mg/kg ranked first for endoscopic improvement. Most drugs were safe and well tolerated.

Comparison of the Rome IV criteria with the Rome III criteria for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome in secondary care.

OBJECTIVES: Despite being proposed 4 years ago, there has been no independent validation study of the Rome IV criteria for IBS. We assessed their performance for the diagnosis of IBS in secondary care and compared them with the previous iteration, the Rome III criteria. DESIGN: We collected complete symptom data from consecutive adult patients with suspected IBS referred to a single UK clinic. All subjects underwent relatively standardised workup, with assessors blinded to symptom status. The reference standard used to confirm IBS was the presence of lower abdominal pain or discomfort in association with altered stool form or frequency, in a patient with no evidence of organic gastrointestinal disease after investigation. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), with 95% CIs, were calculated for each of the diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: The level of agreement between the Rome IV and Rome III criteria was good (kappa=0.65). Compared with the reference standard, sensitivity and specificity of the Rome IV criteria in 572 patients (431 (75.3%) women, mean age 36.5 years) were 82.4% and 82.9%, respectively. Positive and negative LRs for the Rome IV criteria were 4.82 (95% CI 3.30 to 7.28) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.26), respectively. The Rome IV criteria performed best in those with IBS with constipation or mixed bowel habits. In 471 patients (350 (74.3%) women, mean age 36.7 years), compared with the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the Rome III criteria were 85.8% and 65.0%; positive and negative LRs were 2.45 (95% CI 1.90 to 3.27) and 0.22 (0.16 to 0.29), respectively. Incorporating mood and extraintestinal symptom reporting into diagnostic criteria did not improve their performance significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The Rome IV criteria performed significantly better than the Rome III criteria in diagnosing IBS in this single centre secondary care study, although the clinical relevance of this is uncertain.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of irritable bowel syndrome.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders seen by clinicians in both primary and secondary care. Since publication of the last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline in 2007, substantial advances have been made in understanding its complex pathophysiology, resulting in its re-classification as a disorder of gut-brain interaction, rather than a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Moreover, there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning the diagnosis, investigation and management of IBS. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based management of patients. One of the strengths of this guideline is that the recommendations for treatment are based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of trial-based and network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of dietary, pharmacological and psychological therapies in treating IBS. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, summarising both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, this guideline identifies novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need for future research.