Induction of Meal-related Symptoms as a Novel Mechanism of Action of the Duodenal-Jejunal Bypass Sleeve.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with a duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve (DJBS) induces clinically significant weight loss, but little is known about the mechanisms of action of this device. AIM: The aim of this study was to characterize the mechanisms of action of the DJBS and determine the durability of weight loss and metabolic improvements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied a cohort of 19 subjects with severe obesity and type 2 diabetes (baseline body mass index: 43.7±5.3 kg/m). Anthropometry, body composition, blood pressure, biochemical measures, and dietary intake were monitored for 48 weeks after DJBS implantation, and then for 1 year after device removal. Gastric emptying and triglyceride absorption were measured at baseline, 8 weeks after implant, and within 3 weeks of device explant. Visceral sensory function was assessed at baseline, 4 weeks after implant, and within 3 weeks after explant. RESULTS: Significant weight loss (P<0.01) occurred following DJBS placement, with a mean weight reduction of 17.0±6.5% at 48 weeks. The symptom burden following a standardized nutrient challenge was increased after DJBS implantation (P<0.05), returning to baseline after DJBS removal. Neither gastric emptying nor triglyceride absorption changed with the device in situ. A significant reduction in energy intake was observed [baseline: 7703±2978 kJ (1841±712 kcal), 24 weeks: 4824±2259 kJ (1153±540 kcal), and 48 weeks: 4474±1468 kJ (1069±351 kcal)]. After 1 year, anthropometry remained significantly improved, but there was no durable impact on metabolic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: DJBS treatment resulted in substantial weight loss. Weight loss is related to reduced caloric intake, which seems linked to an augmented upper gastrointestinal symptom response, but not altered fat absorption.

The impact of laxative use upon symptoms in patients with proven slow transit constipation.

BACKGROUND: Constipation severity is often defined by symptoms including feelings of complete evacuation, straining, stool frequency and consistency. These descriptors are mostly obtained in the absence of laxative use. For many constipated patients laxative usage is ubiquitous and long standing. Our aim was to determine the impact of laxative use upon the stereotypic constipation descriptors. METHODS: Patients with confirmed slow transit constipation completed 3-week stool diaries, detailing stool frequency and form, straining, laxative use and pain and bloating scores. Each diary day was classified as being under laxative affect (laxative affected days) or not (laxative unaffected days). Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the affects of laxatives on constipation symptoms. RESULTS: Ninety four patients with scintigraphically confirmed slow transit constipation were enrolled in the study. These patients reported a stool frequency of 5.6 ± 4.3 bowel motions/week, only 21 patients reported <3 bowel motions/week. Similarly, 21 patients reported a predominant hard stool at defecation. The majority (90%) of patients reported regular straining. A regular feeling of complete evacuation was reported in just 7 patients. Daily pain and/or bloating were reported by 92% of patients. When compared with laxative unaffected days, on the laxative affected days patients had a higher stool frequency (OR 2.23; P <0.001) and were more likely to report loose stools (OR 1.64; P <0.009). Laxatives did not increase the number of bowel actions associated with a feeling of complete evacuation. Laxative use had no affect upon straining, pain or bloating scores CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of frequent and loose stools with abdominal pain and/or bloating is common in patients with slow transit constipation. While laxative use is a significant contributor to altering stool frequency and form, laxatives have no apparent affect on pain or bloating or upon a patients feeling of complete evacuation. These factors need to be taken into account when using constipation symptoms to define this population.

Neutrophils, eosinophils, and intraepithelial lymphocytes in the squamous esophagus in subjects with and without gastroesophageal reflux symptoms.

Whilst intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) are considered normal within the distal esophageal mucosa, they have an increasingly recognised role in the pathogenesis of reflux esophagitis, and IEL quantification establishes the diagnosis of lymphocytic esophagitis. Knowledge regarding the upper limit of a normal IEL count in health is lacking. We studied 117 non-healthcare seeking adult volunteers from a random community sample (the Kalixanda study) with esophageal biopsies 2 cm above the gastroesophageal junction. Subjects were divided into four groups based on the presence or absence of gastro-esophageal reflux symptoms and/or esophagitis on endoscopy. Asymptomatic subjects with no endoscopic esophagitis were selected as controls, and the cell counts in this group were used to define the upper limit of normal of IELs, eosinophils and neutrophils. The entire sample was used to identify independent predictors of increased cellular counts by logistic regression analysis. None of the healthy controls had an IEL count of more than three per five high power fields (HPF), and therefore this was considered as the upper limit of normal; no controls had eosinophils or neutrophils in esophageal biopsies. Independent predictors of an elevated IEL count were spongiosis on histology (OR 11.17, 95% CI 3.32-37.58, P < 0.01) and current smoking (OR 4.84, 95% CI 1.13-2.71, P = 0.03). A receiver operating characteristics analysis concluded that a threshold of 3 IELs/5HPFs performs best in predicting reflux symptoms when a normal esophageal mucosa is visualized on endoscopy (sensitivity = 100.0%, specificity = 35.2%). The healthy esophageal mucosa does not contain more than three IELs per five HPF in the distal esophagus.

Role of smoking in functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: three random population-based studies.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if functional dyspepsia (FD) or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are linked to smoking, and smoking cessation is not part of the routine advice provided to these patients. AIM: To assess if smoking is an independent risk factor for FD and IBS. METHODS: Three population-based endoscopy studies in Sweden with 2560 community individuals in total (mean age 51.5 years, 46% male). IBS (14.9%), FD (33.5%), and associated symptoms were assessed using the validated abdominal symptom questionnaire, and smoking (17.9%) was obtained from standardised questions during a clinic visit. The effect of smoking on symptom status was analysed in an individual person data meta-analysis using mixed effect logistic regression, adjusted for snuffing, age and sex. RESULTS: Individuals smoking cigarettes reported significantly higher odds of postprandial distress syndrome (FD-PDS) (OR 10-19 cig/day = 1.42, 95% CI 1.04-1.98 P = 0.027, OR ≥20 cig/day = 2.16, 95% CI 1.38-3.38, P = 0.001) but not epigastric pain. Individuals smoking 20 or more cigarettes per day reported significantly higher odds of IBS-diarrhoea (OR = 2.40, 95% CI 1.12-5.16, P = 0.025), diarrhoea (OR = 2.01, 95%CI 1.28-3.16, P = 0.003), urgency (OR = 2.21, 95%CI 1.41-3.47, P = 0.001) and flatus (OR = 1.77, 95%CI 1.14-2.76, P = 0.012) than non-smokers. Smoking was not associated with IBS-constipation or IBS-mixed. CONCLUSION: Smoking is an important environmental risk factor for postprandial distress syndrome, the most common FD subgroup, with over a twofold increased odds of PDS in heavy smokers. The role of smoking in IBS-diarrhoea, but not constipation, is also likely important.

Descending pain modulation in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder. While abdominal pain is a dominant symptom of IBS, many sufferers also report widespread hypersensitivity and present with other chronic pain conditions. The presence of widespread hypersensitivity and extra-intestinal pain conditions suggests central nervous dysfunction. While central nervous system dysfunction may involve the spinal cord (central sensitisation) and brain, this review will focus on one brain mechanism, descending pain modulation. METHOD/DESIGN: We will conduct a comprehensive search for the articles indexed in the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) from their inception to August 2015, that report on any aspect of descending pain modulation in irritable bowel syndrome. Two independent reviewers will screen studies for eligibility, assess risk of bias and extract relevant data. Results will be tabulated and, if possible, a meta-analysis will be carried out. DISCUSSION: The systematic review outlined in this protocol aims to summarise current knowledge regarding descending pain modulation in IBS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015024284.