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.

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.

Utility of irritable bowel syndrome subtypes and most troublesome symptom in predicting disease impact and burden.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the characteristics of individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) according to stool subtype or the most troublesome symptom reported by the individual, or whether these are useful in predicting the impact of IBS. METHODS: We collected demographic, gastrointestinal, and psychological symptoms, healthcare usage and direct healthcare costs, impact on work and activities of daily living, and quality of life data from individuals with Rome IV-defined IBS. KEY RESULTS: We recruited 752 people with Rome IV IBS. Individuals with IBS-D reported a poorer disease-specific quality of life than those with IBS-C or IBS-M (mean (SD) IBS-QOL 45.3 (23.0) for IBS-D, vs. 52.3 (19.9) for IBS-C, vs. 49.4 (22.0) for IBS-M, p = 0.005). Mean (SD) IBS-QOL scores were also lower amongst those who reported diarrhea (44.8 (22.3)) or urgency (44.6 (22.3)) as their most troublesome symptom, compared with those reporting abdominal pain (52.2 (22.9)), constipation (49.5 (21.8)), or abdominal bloating or distension (50.4 (21.3)). However, there were no differences in mean EQ-5D scores, IBS severity, levels of anxiety, depression, somatoform symptom-reporting, or gastrointestinal symptom-specific anxiety. Direct healthcare costs of IBS were similar across all subtypes and all most troublesome symptom groups, although some differences in work productivity and social leisure activities were detected. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: There appears to be limited variation in the characteristics of individuals with Rome IV IBS based on both stool subtypes and most troublesome symptom reported, suggesting that gastrointestinal symptoms alone have limited ability to predict disease impact and burden.