Chronic Visceral Pain: New Peripheral Mechanistic Insights and Resulting Treatments.

Chronic visceral pain is one of the most common reasons for patients with gastrointestinal disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease or disorders of brain-gut interaction, to seek medical attention. It represents a substantial burden to patients and is associated with anxiety, depression, reductions in quality of life, and impaired social functioning, as well as increased direct and indirect health care costs to society. Unfortunately, the diagnosis and treatment of chronic visceral pain is difficult, in part because our understanding of the underlying pathophysiologic basis is incomplete. In this review, we highlight recent advances in peripheral pain signaling and specific physiologic and pathophysiologic preclinical mechanisms that result in the sensitization of peripheral pain pathways. We focus on preclinical mechanisms that have been translated into treatment approaches and summarize the current evidence base for directing treatment toward these mechanisms of chronic visceral pain derived from clinical trials. The effective management of chronic visceral pain remains of critical importance for the quality of life of suffers. A deeper understanding of peripheral pain mechanisms is necessary and may provide the basis for novel therapeutic interventions.

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.

Postprandial symptoms in disorders of gut-brain interaction and their potential as a treatment target.

Postprandial, or meal-related, symptoms, such as abdominal pain, early satiation, fullness or bloating, are often reported by patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction, including functional dyspepsia (FD) or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We propose that postprandial symptoms arise via a distinct pathophysiological process. A physiological or psychological insult, for example, acute enteric infection, leads to loss of tolerance to a previously tolerated oral food antigen. This enables interaction of both the microbiota and the food antigen itself with the immune system, causing a localised immunological response, with activation of eosinophils and mast cells, and release of inflammatory mediators, including histamine and cytokines. These have more widespread systemic effects, including triggering nociceptive nerves and altering mood. Dietary interventions, including a diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols, elimination of potential food antigens or gluten, IgG food sensitivity diets or salicylate restriction may benefit some patients with IBS or FD. This could be because the restriction of these foods or dietary components modulates this pathophysiological process. Similarly, drugs including proton pump inhibitors, histamine-receptor antagonists, mast cell stabilisers or even tricyclic or tetracyclic antidepressants, which have anti-histaminergic actions, all of which are potential treatments for FD and IBS, act on one or more of these mechanisms. It seems unlikely that food antigens driving intestinal immune activation are the entire explanation for postprandial symptoms in FD and IBS. In others, fermentation of intestinal carbohydrates, with gas release altering reflex responses, adverse reactions to food chemicals, central mechanisms or nocebo effects may dominate. However, if the concept that postprandial symptoms arise from food antigens driving an immune response in the gastrointestinal tract in a subset of patients is correct, it is paradigm-shifting, because if the choice of treatment were based on one or more of these therapeutic targets, patient outcomes may be improved.

Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

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.

Negative Impact of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction on Health-Related Quality of Life: Results From the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Survey.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study used the database from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Survey to assess the differences in quality of life overall, and by age and sex, across individual disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), gastrointestinal anatomical region(s), and number of overlapping DGBI. METHODS: Data were collected via the Internet in 26 countries, using the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and a supplemental questionnaire including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems Global-10 quality of life measure. Factorial analyses of variance were used to explore physical and mental quality of life, adjusting for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Among the 54,127 respondents, quality of life deteriorated significantly with increasing number of overlapping DGBI, with respondents reporting ≥2 DGBI having significantly poorer quality of life than those with only 1 DGBI or those without any DGBI. Men with DGBI reported better quality of life than women, and those aged ≥65 years reported better quality of life than those <65 years. Age, sex, number of overlapping DGBI, somatization, anxiety, depression, and functional experiences (concern, embarrassment, or stress associated with bowel functioning) relating to DGBI, were significant predictors of poorer physical and mental quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the most comprehensive assessment of quality of life to date in adults living with a DGBI. It provides a representative picture of DGBI impact on adults in the global adult population and highlights the significant detrimental impact of living with a DGBI on quality of life.

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 healthcare system, as well as examining reproducibility. METHODS: We applied our model to 2195 individuals in the RFGES with Rome IV-defined IBS. As described previously, we identified seven clusters, based on gastrointestinal symptom severity and psychological burden. We assessed demographics, healthcare-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 seven 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 healthcare-seeking, were more likely to have undergone previous abdominal surgeries, and had higher symptom severity and lower quality of life (p<0.001 for trend for all). When deriving a new model, the best solution consisted of 10 clusters, although at least two appeared 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 healthcare-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.

Relative Contribution of Disease Activity and Psychological Health to Prognosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease During 6.5 Years of Longitudinal Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety or depression, are common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and may affect prognosis. However, unlike clinical or biochemical markers of disease activity, psychological health is not a recommended therapeutic target. We assessed relative contribution of poor psychological health and clinical or biochemical activity to prognosis. METHODS: Demographic features, IBD subtype, treatments, and anxiety and depression scores were recorded at baseline for 760 adults, with clinical activity determined using validated scoring systems. Fecal calprotectin was analyzed in 379 (49.9%) patients (≥250 µg/g used to define biochemical activity). Glucocorticosteroid prescription or flare, escalation, hospitalization, intestinal resection, or death were assessed during 6.5 years of follow-up. Occurrence was compared using multivariate Cox regression across 4 patient groups according to presence of disease remission or activity, with or without symptoms of a common mental disorder, at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 718 (94.5%) participants provided data. Compared with clinical remission without symptoms of a common mental disorder at baseline, need for glucocorticosteroid prescription or flare (hazard ratio [HR], 2.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-3.54), escalation (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.14--2.40), and death (HR, 4.99; 95% CI, 1.80-13.88) were significantly higher in those with clinical activity and symptoms of a common mental disorder. Rates in those with clinical remission and symptoms of a common mental disorder at baseline or those with clinical activity without symptoms of a common mental disorder were not significantly higher. Similarly, with biochemical activity and symptoms of a common mental disorder, rates of glucocorticosteroid prescription or flare (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.38-4.46), escalation (HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.74-5.06), hospitalization (HR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.43-6.68), and death (HR, 6.26; 95% CI, 2.23-17.56) were significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological factors are important determinants of poor prognostic outcomes in IBD and should be considered as a therapeutic target.

What is the Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Subjects With Dyspepsia? Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in people with dyspepsia and understanding how symptoms can predict endoscopic pathology can help inform dyspepsia guidelines. We evaluated this in an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2010 through to January 2022 to identify relevant articles. Eligible studies enrolled adults from the community, workplace, blood donation or screening clinics, family physician offices, or internal medicine clinics. Studies were required to report prevalence of dyspepsia and perform esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in subjects with and without dyspepsia was pooled for all studies and compared using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The data were pooled with those of the 9 studies included in the prior review. RESULTS: Of 511 papers evaluated, 184 reported prevalence of dyspepsia. Fifteen reported prevalence of endoscopic findings among 41,763 participants (40.4% with dyspepsia). Erosive esophagitis was the most common abnormality (pooled prevalence, 11.0%; 95% CI, 8.9%-13.2%) followed by peptic ulcer (pooled prevalence, 4.4%; 95% CI, 2.5%-6.7%). The only finding encountered more frequently in individuals with dyspepsia, compared with those without, was peptic ulcer (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.08-2.39). More than 85% of EGDs were completely normal. Gastroesophageal cancer was rare (<0.4%) and equally prevalent among those with and without dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS: Erosive esophagitis was the most common clinically significant finding at EGD, whereas gastroesophageal cancers were rare. Most pathology, including esophagitis and cancer, were found in similar proportions in both groups. These findings support noninvasive approaches to managing dyspepsia in the community, with EGD reserved for those at high risk of malignancy.

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.

Linaclotide Reduced Response Time for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation Symptoms: Analysis of 4 Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: These post hoc analyses provide clinically relevant data concerning time to response for individual irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) symptoms after linaclotide use. METHODS: Time-to-response data were pooled from 4 randomized controlled trials. Response time for abdominal symptoms (pain, discomfort, and bloating) and complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method; patients were categorized as early responders (≤4 weeks), late responders (>4-12 weeks), or nonresponders. RESULTS: Among 2,350 patients (1,172 placebo and 1,178 linaclotide 290 µg), >50% of patients with IBS-C who initiated linaclotide treatment experienced a decrease of ≥30% in abdominal pain, discomfort, or bloating within 3-4 weeks (median). The median time to achieving ≥3 CSBMs was 4 weeks. Although not all linaclotide-treated patients responded within 12 weeks, a late response occurred between 4 and 12 weeks in 1 in 6 patients for abdominal pain and in approximately 1 in 10 patients for CSBM frequency. Comparisons of early responders, late responders, and nonresponders for both response definitions indicated that women, Whites, and patients with less severe baseline abdominal symptoms were more likely to respond early. DISCUSSION: Although treatment responses with linaclotide occurred in >50% of patients with IBS-C within 4 weeks of treatment initiation, benefits for individual abdominal symptoms and/or CSBM frequency can still occur between 4 and 12 weeks. A lack of improvement in one symptom does not negate the possibility of response for others, highlighting the importance of discussing all symptoms with patients and not assuming treatment futility at 4 weeks.

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.