Patient Engagement and Multidisciplinary Involvement Has an Impact on Clinical Guideline Development and Decisions: A Comparison of Two Irritable Bowel Syndrome Guidelines Using the Same Data.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The value of a multidisciplinary group and patient engagement in guideline groups is uncertain. We compared the recommendations of two guidelines that used the same data during the same time frame but with different participants to obtain a "real world" perspective on influence of the composition of guideline groups. METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recently updated their clinical practice guidelines for the management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). Both the CAG and ACG used the same methodology and methodologist and were presented with the same data for interpretation. The ACG group consisted of predominantly academic gastroenterologists, while the CAG group also included general practitioners, a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a patient representative. The CAG group were also asked what components of the group were valuable. RESULTS: There were 14 statements with the same or similar recommendations. There were 10 statements in the CAG guideline not addressed by the ACG guideline and five recommendations where the opposite was the case. There was one statement that the two groups both addressed, but each group came to different conclusions. CAG members were in 100% agreement that involving a patient and having a multidisciplinary team was valuable and may have played a role in these differing interpretations of the same data in an IBS guideline. CONCLUSIONS: There has been little uptake of patient involvement and multidisciplinary teams in guideline groups. However, this study provides a unique example of added benefit through broader group representation.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, affecting about 10% of the general population globally. The aim of this consensus was to develop guidelines for the management of IBS. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified studies on the management of IBS. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on by a multidisciplinary group of clinicians and a patient. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 28 of 31 statements. Irritable bowel syndrome is diagnosed based on symptoms; serological testing is suggested to exclude celiac disease, but routine testing for C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin or food allergies is not recommended. A trial of a low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, polyols (FODMAP) diet is suggested, while a gluten-free diet is not. Psyllium, but not wheat bran, supplementation may help reduce symptoms. Alternative therapies such as peppermint oil and probiotics are suggested, while herbal therapies and acupuncture are not. Cognitive behavioural therapy and hypnotherapy are suggested psychological therapies. Among the suggested or recommended pharmacological therapies are antispasmodics, certain antidepressants, eluxadoline, lubiprostone, and linaclotide. Loperamide, cholestyramine and osmotic laxatives are not recommended for overall IBS symptoms. The nature of the IBS symptoms (diarrhea-predominant or constipation-predominant) should be considered in the choice of pharmacological treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBS may benefit from a multipronged, individualized approach to treatment, including dietary modifications, psychological and pharmacological therapies.