Evaluation of a Multidisciplinary Integrated Treatment Approach Versus Standard Model of Care for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (FGIDS): A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) are linked to a variety of potential causes, and treatments include reassurance, life-style (including diet), psychological, or pharmacologic interventions. AIMS: To assess whether a multidisciplinary integrated treatment approach delivered in a dedicated integrated care clinic (ICC) was superior to the standard model of care in relation to the gastrointestinal symptom burden. METHODS: A matched cohort of 52 consecutive patients with severe manifestation of FGID were matched with 104 control patients based upon diagnosis, gender, age, and symptom severity. Patients in the ICC received structured assessment and 12-weeks integrated treatment sessions provided as required by gastroenterologist and allied health team. Control patients received standard medical care at the same tertiary center with access to allied health services as required but no standardized interprofessional team approach. Primary outcome was reduction in gastrointestinal symptom burden as measured by the Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scale (SAGIS). Secondary outcome was reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Mixed models estimated the within ICC change in SAGIS total as -9.7 (95% CI -13.6, -5.8; p < 0.0001), compared with -1.7 (95% CI -4.0, 0.6; p = 0.15) for controls. The difference between groups reached statistical significance, -7.6 (95% CI -11.4, -3.8; p < 0.0001). Total HADS scores in ICC patients were 3.4 points lower post-intervention and reached statistical significance (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This matched cohort study demonstrates superior short-term outcomes of FGID patients in a structured multidisciplinary care setting as compared to standard care.

The inter- and intrarater reliability and feasibility of dietetic assessment of sarcopenia and frailty in potential liver transplant recipients: A mixed-methods study.

Sarcopenia and frailty are associated with poorer outcomes in potential liver transplant (LT) recipients. We examined the reliability and feasibility of dietitians assessing sarcopenia and frailty. Seventy-five adults referred for LT underwent assessments of muscle mass (abdominal CTs), physical function (handgrip strength; HGS, short physical performance battery; SPPB), and frailty (Liver Frailty Index; LFI). Inter- and intrarater reliability and agreement were assessed in subsets of patients using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots. CTs were analyzed by a dietitian and two independent experts, two dietitians assessed function and frailty. Feasibility assessed system, patient, and profession factors (staff survey). Inter- and intrarater reliability for CT-defined low muscle were excellent (ICCs > 0.97). Reliability between dietitians was excellent for HGS (0.968, 95% CI, 0.928-0.986), SPPB (0.932, 95% CI, 0.798-0.973), and LFI (0.938, 95% CI 0.861-0.973). Bland-Altman analysis indicated excellent agreement for HGS. All transplant clinicians valued sarcopenia and frailty in LT assessments and considered the dietitian appropriate to perform them. Seven saw no barriers to implementation into practice, while five queried test standardization, learning from repeat testing, and resource cost. Dietetic assessments of sarcopenia and frailty are reliable, feasible, and valued measures in the assessment of potential LT recipients.