A low FODMAP diet plus traditional dietary advice versus a low-carbohydrate diet versus pharmacological treatment in irritable bowel syndrome (CARIBS): a single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dietary advice and medical treatments are recommended to patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Studies have not yet compared the efficacy of dietary treatment with pharmacological treatment targeting the predominant IBS symptom. We therefore aimed to compare the effects of two restrictive dietary treatment options versus optimised medical treatment in people with IBS. METHODS: This single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted in a specialised outpatient clinic at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. Participants (aged ≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe IBS (Rome IV; IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] ≥175) and no other serious diseases or food allergies were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by web-based randomisation to receive a diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) plus traditional IBS dietary advice recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (hereafter the LFTD diet), a fibre-optimised diet low in total carbohydrates and high in protein and fat (hereafter the low-carbohydrate diet), or optimised medical treatment based on predominant IBS symptom. Participants were masked to the names of the diets, but the pharmacological treatment was open-label. The intervention lasted 4 weeks, after which time participants in the dietary interventions were unmasked to their diets and encouraged to continue during 6 months' follow-up, participants in the LFTD group were instructed on how to reintroduce FODMAPs, and participants receiving pharmacological treatment were offered diet counselling and to continue with their medication. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who responded to the 4-week intervention, defined as a reduction of 50 or more in IBS-SSS relative to baseline, and was analysed per modified intention-to-treat (ie, all participants who started the intervention). Safety was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02970591, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24, 2017, and Sept 2, 2021, 1104 participants were assessed for eligibility and 304 were randomly assigned. Ten participants did not receive their intervention after randomisation and thus 294 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (96 assigned to the LFTD diet, 97 to the low-carbohydrate diet, and 101 to optimised medical treatment). 241 (82%) of 294 participants were women and 53 (18%) were men and the mean age was 38 (SD 13). After 4 weeks, 73 (76%) of 96 participants in the LFTD diet group, 69 (71%) of 97 participants in the low-carbohydrate diet group, and 59 (58%) of 101 participants in the optimised medical treatment group had a reduction of 50 or more in IBS-SSS compared with baseline, with a significant difference between the groups (p=0·023). 91 (95%) of 96 participants completed 4 weeks in the LFTD group, 92 (95%) of 97 completed 4 weeks in the low-carbohydrate group, and 91 (90%) of 101 completed 4 weeks in the optimised medical treatment group. Two individuals in each of the intervention groups stated that adverse events were the reason for discontinuing the 4-week intervention. Five (5%) of 91 participants in the optimised medical treatment group stopped treatment prematurely due to side-effects. No serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Two 4-week dietary interventions and optimised medical treatment reduced the severity of IBS symptoms, with a larger effect size in the diet groups. Dietary interventions might be considered as an initial treatment for patients with IBS. Research is needed to enable personalised treatment strategies. FUNDING: The Healthcare Board Region Västra Götaland, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, AFA Insurance, grants from the Swedish state, the Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren Science Foundation, Skandia, the Dietary Science Foundation, and the Nanna Swartz Foundation.

Global Prevalence of Psychological Distress and Comorbidity With Disorders of Gut-Brain Interactions.

INTRODUCTION: This study focused on defining the global prevalence of clinically relevant levels of psychological distress and somatic symptoms and the prevalence of coexistence between these symptoms and disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). We also analyzed how clinically relevant psychological distress and somatic symptoms and coexistent DGBI are associated with health-related outcomes. METHODS: We included a representative sample of 54,127 adult participants (49.1% women; mean age of 44.3 years) from 26 countries worldwide. Participants completed an Internet survey (the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study) with validated self-report questionnaires. RESULTS: Clinically relevant psychological distress and/or somatic symptom severity was reported by 37.5% of the sample. These participants had 4.45 times higher odds to have at least one DGBI than individuals without psychological distress and/or somatic symptoms. Compared with participants with psychological distress and/or somatic symptoms with vs without DGBI, participants with a DGBI reported increased healthcare and medication utilization (with OR from 1.6 to 2.8). Coexistent DGBI in participants with psychological distress and/or somatic symptoms was the variable most strongly associated with reduced mental (ß = -0.77; confidence interval [-0.86 to -0.68]) and physical (ß = -1.17; confidence interval [-1.24 to -1.10]) quality of life. DISCUSSION: This global study shows that psychological distress, somatic symptoms, and DGBI are very common and frequently overlap. The coexistence between psychological distress/somatic symptoms and DGBI seems to be especially detrimental to quality of life and healthcare utilization. Individuals with psychological distress/somatic symptoms and DGBI coexistence seem to be a group vulnerable to psychosocial problems that should be studied further and would likely benefit from psychological/psychiatric interventions.

Prevalence and impact of disorders of Gut-Brain interaction in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Previous epidemiologic studies in Sweden have only covered some of the disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) and are not representative of the general population. This study aimed to define the prevalence and impact of DGBI in Sweden. METHODS: We used Swedish data from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study which include information on DGBI diagnoses, psychological distress, quality of life (QoL), healthcare utilization, and the impact of stress on GI symptoms. KEY RESULTS: The prevalence of having any DGBI was 39.1% (95% CI 37.0-41.2); esophageal disorders 6.1% (5.1-7.3), gastroduodenal disorders 10.7% (9.3-12.0), bowel disorders 31.6% (29.6-33.6), and anorectal disorders 6.0% (5.1-7.2). Subjects with a DGBI more commonly reported anxiety and/or depression, reduced mental and physical QoL, and more frequent doctor visits due to health problems. Subjects with a DGBI reported bothersome gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms to a greater extent and more than 1/3 had visited a doctor due to GI problems and of those 1/3 had seen multiple doctors. Prescription medications were available among 36.4% (31.0-42.0) who had bothersome GI symptoms and a DGBI, with sufficient symptom relief in 73.2% (64.0-81.1). Psychological factors and eating were reported to worsen GI symptoms and stress during the last month was greater in subjects with a DGBI. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: DGBI prevalence and its impact in Sweden is in line with global data, including increased healthcare utilization. GI symptoms are commonly affected by psychological factors and eating, and a high proportion of those on prescription medication report sufficient GI symptom relief.

Factor Analysis of the Rome IV Criteria for Major Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) Globally and Across Geographical, Sex, and Age Groups.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Rome criteria are widely accepted for diagnosing disorders of gut-brain interaction, but their global applicability has been debated. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of the Rome IV criteria by factor analysis globally, across geographical regions, by sex, and by age groups. METHODS: Data were collected in 26 countries using the Rome IV questionnaire. Forty-nine ordinal variables were used in exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify clusters of inter-correlated variables (factors) within the data set. Confirmatory factor analysis with predefined factors of the disorders of gut-brain interaction was compared with the factors in the EFA. Analyses were performed globally, for each geographical region (North and Latin America, Western and Eastern Europe, Middle East, Asia), sex, and age groups (18-34, 35-49, 50-64, ≥65). RESULTS: A total of 54,127 people were included. The EFA identified 10 factors accounting for 57% of the variance: irritable bowel syndrome, constipation, diarrhea, upper gastrointestinal symptoms, globus, regurgitation/retching, chest pain, nausea/vomiting, and 2 right upper quadrant pain factors. Most factors had close correspondence to a Rome IV criteria diagnosis, but notably, functional dysphagia and heartburn symptoms were often included in the same factor and/or in upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Most factors were consistent across geographical regions, sex, and age groups, and compatible to the global results. All prespecified factors in the confirmatory analysis had a loading ≥0.4, indicating validity of the Rome IV criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, functional constipation, globus, and biliary pain are globally valid and represent universal diagnostic entities that are similar across sex and age groups.

A comparative study of disorders of gut-brain interaction in Western Europe and Asia based on the Rome foundation global epidemiology study.

OBJECTIVE: Many studies have been published on disorders of the gut-brain interaction (DGBI) in Asia and Western Europe, but no previous study has directly assessed the difference between the two regions. The aim was to compare the prevalence of DGBI in Asia and Western Europe. METHODS: We used data collected in a population-based Internet survey, the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study, from countries in Western Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore). We assessed DGBI diagnoses (Rome IV Adult Diagnostic Questionnaire), anxiety/depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-4, PHQ-4), non-GI somatic symptoms (PHQ-12), and access to and personal costs of doctor visits. RESULTS: The study included 9487 subjects in Asia and 16,314 in Western Europe. Overall, 38.0% had at least one DGBI; younger age, female sex, and higher scores on PHQ4 and PHQ12 were all associated with DGBI. The prevalence of having at least one DGBI was higher in Western Europe than in Asia (39.1% vs 36.1%, OR 1.14 [95% CI 1.08-1.20]). This difference was also observed for DGBI by anatomical regions, most prominently esophageal DGBI (OR 1.67 [1.48-1.88]). After adjustment, the difference in DGBI prevalence diminished and psychological (PHQ-4) and non-GI somatic symptoms (PHQ-12) had the greatest effect on the odds ratio estimates. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of DGBI is generally higher in Western Europe compared to Asia. A considerable portion of the observed difference in prevalence rates seems to be explained by more severe psychological and non-GI somatic symptoms in Western Europe.

Comparison of medication adherence to different oral anticoagulants: population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Previous observational studies have yielded conflicting results on whether medication adherence differs between patients receiving warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Importantly, no study has adequately accounted for warfarin dosing being continuously modified based on INR values while dosing of DOACs is fixed. We aimed to compare non-adherence between new users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in a population-based cohort. METHODS: New users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin from 2014 to 2019 living in the Icelandic capital area were included. Non-adherence was defined as proportion of days covered below 80%. Inverse probability weighting was used to yield balanced study groups and non-adherence was compared using logistic regression. Factors associated with non-adherence were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 1266 patients received apixaban, 247 dabigatran, 1566 rivaroxaban and 768 warfarin. The proportion of patients with non-adherence ranged from 10.5% to 16.7%. Dabigatran was associated with significantly higher odds of non-adherence compared with apixaban (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.04, p<0.001), rivaroxaban (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.89, p=0.005) and warfarin (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.15, p<0.001). The odds of non-adherence were similar for apixaban, rivaroxaban and warfarin. Apart from the type of oral anticoagulants (OACs) used, female sex, hypertension, history of cerebrovascular accident and concomitant statin use were all independently associated with lower odds of non-adherence. CONCLUSION: Dabigatran was associated with higher odds of non-adherence compared with other OACs. Non-adherence was similar between apixaban, rivaroxaban and warfarin users. Female sex and higher comorbidity were associated with better medication adherence.

Associations between postprandial symptoms, hydrogen and methane production, and transit time in irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal oroanal transit time (OATT) and visceral hypersensitivity are key pathophysiological factors in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The lactulose nutrient challenge test (LNCT) has been developed to assess the postprandial symptoms and gut microbial fermentation. We aimed to investigate associations between OATT, rectal sensitivity, and LNCT in IBS patients. METHODS: We included 263 IBS patients from two study cohorts, where the link between pathophysiology and symptoms was investigated. During the LNCT, severity of postprandial symptoms was graded, and breath hydrogen/methane concentrations were measured after ingestion of a combined lactulose nutrient drink every 15 min for 4 h. The patients underwent rectal sensitivity (rectal barostat) and OATT (radiopaque markers) investigations. Comorbid conditions (functional dyspepsia, anxiety, depression, and somatization) were assessed with questionnaires. KEY RESULTS: After controlling for comorbid conditions, rectal sensitivity was associated with abdominal pain (p < 0.05), and more rapid OATT was associated with higher severity of abdominal discomfort, rumbling, nausea, and urgency (p < 0.05 for all) both pre- and post-prandially. Postprandial nausea, urgency, and abdominal pain changed differently over time depending on OATT (p < 0.05 for all). OATT, but not rectal sensitivity, was associated with hydrogen and methane concentrations (p = 0.002 for both). Trajectories over time of postprandial symptoms and exhaled hydrogen/methane concentrations were correlated with different correlations depending on OATT. CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES: This study highlights the importance of oroanal transit and hydrogen and methane production in the pathophysiology of IBS and increases our understanding of pathophysiological factors involved in postprandial symptom generation. Treatments targeting oroanal transit and hydrogen and methane production may improve specific postprandial symptoms.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants: a nationwide propensity score-weighted study.

In the pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with atrial fibrillation, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) had similar or even superior efficacy and safety compared with warfarin. However, RCTs comparing different DOACs are nonexistent and previous observational studies have yielded conflicting results. In this nationwide cohort study, rates of any stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding were compared among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban with atrial fibrillation from 2014 to 2019. Inverse probability weighting was used to yield balanced study groups, and outcomes were compared using Cox regression. Stroke/SE rates were similar in patients receiving apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. Dabigatran was associated with twofold higher rates of myocardial infarction (MI) than rivaroxaban (1.4 events/100 person-years (py) vs 0.7 events/100-py, hazard ratio [HR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-4.90) and apixaban (1.4 events/100-py vs 0.7 events/100-py, HR 2.26, 95% CI, 0.90-5.67), although the second comparison included the possibility of a null effect. Rivaroxaban was associated with higher major bleeding rates compared with apixaban (2.9 events/100-py vs 1.8 events/100-py, HR 1.64, 95% CI, 1.13-2.37) and dabigatran (2.9 events/100-py vs 1.4 events/100-py, HR 2.18, 95% CI, 1.21-3.93). Specifically, rivaroxaban had higher rates of major gastrointestinal bleeding and other major bleeding than apixaban. In conclusion, although stroke/SE rates were similar for DOACs, rivaroxaban was associated with higher rates of major bleeding than other DOACs and lower rates of MI than dabigatran. These results may help guide oral anticoagulant selection, especially in patients at high risk of bleeding or MI.

Warfarin Is Associated With Higher Rates of Upper But Not Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding Compared with Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Population-Based Propensity-Weighted Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: While overall gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) rates have been extensively compared between warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), it is still unclear whether upper and lower GIB rates differ between these types of drugs. This study aimed to compare upper and lower GIB rates between warfarin and DOACs in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: Data on all patients in Iceland who received a prescription for oral anticoagulation from 2014 to 2019 were collected and their personal identification numbers linked to the electronic medical record system of the National University Hospital of Iceland and the 4 regional hospitals in Iceland. Inverse probability weighting was used to yield balanced study groups and rates of overall, major, upper, and lower GIB were compared using Cox regression. All GIB events were manually confirmed by chart review. RESULTS: Warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GIB (1.7 events per 100 person-years vs 0.8 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-3.59) but similar rates of lower GIB compared with DOACs. Specifically, warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GIB compared with apixaban (HR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.35-5.13), dabigatran (5.47; 95% CI, 1.87-16.05), and rivaroxaban (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.00-3.05). Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major GIB compared with apixaban (2.3 events per 100 person-years vs 1.5 events per 100 person-years; HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.06-3.05), but otherwise overall and major GIB rates were similar in warfarin and DOAC users. CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper but not overall or lower GIB compared with DOACs. Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major GIB compared with apixaban.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding on Oral Anticoagulation: What is Currently Known.

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common type of bleeding occurring in patients on oral anticoagulation. A meta-analysis of the landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with atrial fibrillation demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were associated with higher GIB rates compared to warfarin. However, significant heterogeneity existed between studies. While rivaroxaban, high-dose dabigatran, and high-dose edoxaban were associated with higher GIB rates than warfarin, GIB rates were similar between warfarin users and both apixaban and low-dose dabigatran users. Additionally, previous observational studies have yielded conflicting reports on whether GIB rates differ between warfarin and DOACs. Meta-analyses of observational studies demonstrated that warfarin is associated with lower rates of GIB compared to rivaroxaban, similar or lower rates compared to dabigatran, and higher rates compared to apixaban. Importantly, no RCT has compared individual DOACs directly and due to the different selection criteria of the initial RCTs, indirect comparisons between DOACs using these studies are unreliable. The best available information of comparisons between individual DOACs is therefore limited to observational studies. There is mounting evidence that suggests that rivaroxaban is associated with a higher risk of GIB compared to other DOACs. Finally, GIB induced by oral anticoagulation may have some positive aspects. Interestingly, there are studies that indicate oral anticoagulation facilitates colorectal cancer detection. Furthermore, results from RCTs and observational studies suggest that warfarin may even decrease the incidence of cancer.

Randomised clinical trial and meta-analysis: mesalazine treatment in irritable bowel syndrome-effects on gastrointestinal symptoms and rectal biomarkers of immune activity.

BACKGROUND: Low-grade immune activation in the gut is a potential treatment target in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). AIMS: To determine improvement in IBS symptoms after mesalazine treatment, and the utility of measures of immune activity in the rectal mucosa METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, multicentre trial in subjects with IBS (Rome III criteria), with an eight-week treatment period of mesalazine 2400 mg or plcebo once-daily. The primary endpoint was the global assessment of satisfactory relief of IBS symptoms in ≥50% of weeks during intervention. IBS symptoms were also measured with the IBS severity scoring system; immune activity was measured by mucosal patch technology. A post hoc meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials of mesalazine in IBS was added. RESULTS: Of 181 included patients, 91 received mesalazine and 90 received placebo. The primary endpoint was met by 32 (36%) patients after mesalazine and 27 (30%) after placebo (p = 0.40). There were no differences in response rates related to IBS subtype or post-infection symptom onset. More reduction of abdominal bloating was noted in the mesalazine group (p = 0.02). The meta-analysis showed no effect of mesalazine on IBS symptoms. No mucosal patch technology measure could predict response to mesalazine, and found no differences in the effects of intervention on levels of immune markers. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalazine is ineffective in reducing IBS symptoms. Rectal measures of immune activity by the mucosal patch technology cannot predict a higher chance of response to mesalazine.

Irritable bowel syndrome: Factors of importance for disease-specific quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome patients report reduced disease-specific quality of life (IBSQOL). Factors of potential relevance for QOL include gastrointestinal (GI), psychological, and somatic symptoms, demographics, and GI motor and sensory abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative importance of these factors on the different IBSQOL dimensions. METHODS: We included irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients who completed validated questionnaires to assess QOL, stool form and frequency, GI symptom severity, psychological distress, GI-specific anxiety, sense of coherence, and overall somatic symptom severity. Patients also underwent tests for oroanal transit time and rectal sensitivity. The nine dimensions of IBSQOL and their average (overall IBSQOL) were used as outcome variables, and factors associated with these were assessed using general linear models. RESULTS: We included 314 IBS patients (74% female, mean age 36.3 ± 12.2 years). Higher stool frequency, GI and overall somatic symptom severity, psychological distress, and GI-specific anxiety were independently associated with reduced overall IBSQOL, with the model explaining 60% of the variance (p < 0.001). In models using each of the nine dimensions as outcomes, different association of demographic factors, GI symptoms, overall somatic symptom severity, psychological factors and sense of coherence were associated with reduced IBSQOL, explaining 20%-60% of the variance, with GI-specific anxiety being the factor that contributed most frequently. Rectal sensitivity or oroanal transit time were not independently associated with any of the dimensions. CONCLUSION: Different combinations of demographic factors, GI and somatic symptoms, and psychological factors are of importance for the nine IBSQOL dimensions. Gastrointestinal-specific anxiety was the most important factor contributing to the majority of those dimensions in patients with IBS.

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of epistaxis compared to direct oral anticoagulants: A nationwide propensity score-weighted study.

BACKGROUND: Although epistaxis is one of the most common side effects of oral anticoagulation, it is unclear whether epistaxis rates vary between different oral anticoagulants (OAC). OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of clinically relevant epistaxis between OAC. METHODS: Epistaxis event rates were compared between new users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin in a nationwide population-based cohort study over a 5-year study period, 2014-2019. Data was collected from the Icelandic Medicine Registry and the five major hospitals in Iceland. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to yield balanced baseline characteristics, and epistaxis rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression. RESULTS: During the study period, 2098 patients received apixaban, 474 dabigatran, 3106 rivaroxaban, and 1403 warfarin. In total, 93 patients presented with clinically relevant epistaxis, including 11 (12%) major epistaxis events and one fatal epistaxis episode. Furthermore, seven patients (9%) with non-major epistaxis later presented with major bleeding during the follow-up period. Warfarin use was associated with higher rates of epistaxis compared to apixaban (2.2 events per 100-person years (events/100-py) vs. 0.6 events/100-py, hazard ratio [HR] 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-8.59, p < 0.001), rivaroxaban (2.2 events/100-py vs. 1.0 events/100-py, HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.28-4.01, p = 0.005), and dabigatran (2.2 events/100-py vs. no events, HR n/a, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Warfarin treatment was associated with higher rates of clinically relevant epistaxis compared to direct oral anticoagulants.

Global prevalence and burden of meal-related abdominal pain.

BACKGROUND: Patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) report meal intake to be associated with symptoms. DGBI patients with meal-related symptoms may have more severe symptoms overall and worse health outcomes, but this subgroup has not been well characterized. We aimed to describe the global prevalence of meal-related abdominal pain and characterize this subgroup. METHODS: The data analyzed originated from the Internet survey component of the population-based Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study, completed in 26 countries (n = 54,127). Adult subjects were asked whether they had abdominal pain and how often this was meal-related. Respondents were categorized into "no," "occasional," and "frequent" meal-related abdominal pain groups based on 0%, 10-40%, and ≥50% of the pain episodes being meal-related, respectively. DGBI diagnoses, frequency of other GI symptoms, psychological distress, non-GI somatic symptoms, quality of life, and healthcare utilization were compared between groups. Mixed linear and ordinal regression was used to assess independent associations between psychological distress, non-GI somatic symptoms, quality of life, other GI symptoms, and meal-related abdominal pain. RESULTS: Overall, 51.9% of the respondents reported abdominal pain in the last 3 months, and 11.0% belonged to the group with frequent meal-related abdominal pain, which included more females and younger subjects. DGBI diagnoses were more common in subjects with frequent meal-related abdominal pain, and the frequency of several GI symptoms was associated with having more frequent meal-related abdominal pain. Having meal-related abdominal pain more frequently was also associated with more severe psychological distress, non-GI somatic symptoms, and a poorer quality of life. The group with frequent meal-related abdominal pain also more often consulted a doctor for bowel problems compared to the other groups of meal-related abdominal pain. CONCLUSION: Reporting frequent meal-related abdominal pain is common across the globe and associated with other GI and non-GI somatic symptoms, psychological distress, healthcare utilization, and a poorer quality of life. Individuals who frequently experience meal-related abdominal pain also more frequently fulfill the diagnostic criteria for DGBI. Assessing meal-related symptoms in all DGBI patients could be of major importance to improve and individualize symptom management.

Causes of gastrointestinal bleeding in oral anticoagulant users compared to non-users in a population-based study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Causes of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) are not well established. The aims of the study were to compare the causes of GIB in patients on OACs and those not on OAC therapy. METHODS: A nationwide study of all GIB events in patients on OACs in Iceland from 2014-2019 was conducted. Bleeding events were obtained through ICD-10 codes and review of endoscopy databases, confirmed by review of medical records. For comparison, patients not on OACs from previous Icelandic population-based studies were used. RESULTS: Among 752 GIB events in 12,005 patients on OACs, 273 (1.9%) had verified upper and 391 (2.7%) had verified lower GIB. For lower GIB, multivariate analysis showed that OAC users were more likely to have colonic polyps (OR 6.6, 95% CI: 2.4 - 17.8, p < .001) or colorectal cancer (OR 3.7, 95% CI: 2.0 - 7.0, p < .001) but less likely to have ischemic colitis (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.04 - 0.26, p < .001). For upper GIB, bleeding from mucosal erosions (OR 4.0 95% CI: 2.5 - 7.9, p < .001) and angiodysplasia (OR 3.6, 95%CI: 1.5 - 8.6, p = .003) were more common in OAC users. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of GIB caused by colonic polyps and colorectal cancer among OAC patients indicates that OACs treatment may facilitate cancer diagnosis. The low proportion of ischemic colitis among those on OACs suggests that OACs provide a protective effect against ischemic colitis. OACs seem to increase the bleeding from angiodysplasia and mucosal erosive disease.

Global Prevalence and Impact of Rumination Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Rumination syndrome is a Disorder of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) of unknown etiology. We aimed to assess its global prevalence and potential associations with other medical conditions. METHODS: Data were collected via the Internet in 26 countries. Subjects were evenly distributed by country, sex, and age groups and were invited for a "health survey" using the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and a supplementary questionnaire addressing factors potentially associated with DGBI. RESULTS: In all, 54,127 subjects completed the survey (51% male; mean age, 44.3 years). The overall prevalence of rumination syndrome was 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-3.3%). It was highest in Brazil (5.5% CI, 4.5-6.5) and lowest in Singapore (1.7% CI, 1.1-2.2). The mean age of people with rumination syndrome was 44.5 years (standard deviation, 15.6) and it was more common in females (54.5% vs 45.5%). Factors independently associated with rumination syndrome were depression (odds ratio [OR], 1.46), anxiety (OR, 1.8), body mass index (OR, 1.04), and female sex (OR, 1.19). Subjects with multiple DGBI were at increased risk of having rumination syndrome, with the highest risk in subjects with 4 gastrointestinal regions with DGBI (OR, 15.9 compared with none). Quality of life (QoL) was lower in subjects with rumination syndrome compared with the rest of the cohort (PROMIS-10 score: physical QoL mean 12.9 vs 14.5; mental QoL mean 12.0 vs 13.6). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of rumination syndrome is higher than reported in most previous population studies and is likely underdiagnosed in clinical practice. Awareness of rumination syndrome should be raised among clinicians to improve care for these patients.

Rivaroxaban Is Associated With Higher Rates of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Than Other Direct Oral Anticoagulants : A Nationwide Propensity Score-Weighted Study.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) rates for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin have been extensively compared. However, population-based studies comparing GIB rates among different DOACs are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of GIB among apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. DESIGN: Nationwide population-based cohort study. SETTING: Landspítali-The National University Hospital of Iceland and the 4 regional hospitals in Iceland. PATIENTS: New users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of GIB were compared using inverse probability weighting, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 2157 patients receiving apixaban, 494 patients receiving dabigatran, and 3217 patients receiving rivaroxaban were compared. For all patients, rivaroxaban had higher overall rates of GIB (3.2 vs. 2.5 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.42 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.93]) and major GIB (1.9 vs. 1.4 events per 100 person-years; HR, 1.50 [CI, 1.00 to 2.24]) compared with apixaban. Rivaroxaban also had higher GIB rates than dabigatran, with similar point estimates, although the CIs were wider and included the possibility of a null effect. When only patients with atrial fibrillation were included, rivaroxaban was associated with higher rates of overall GIB than apixaban (HR, 1.40 [CI, 1.01 to 1.94]) or dabigatran (HR, 2.04 [CI, 1.17 to 3.55]). Dabigatran was associated with lower rates of upper GIB than rivaroxaban in both analyses. LIMITATIONS: Unmeasured confounding and small subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban was associated with higher GIB rates than apixaban and dabigatran regardless of treatment indication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Icelandic Centre for Research and Landspítali-The National University Hospital of Iceland.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding among patients on antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) require dual antiplatelet therapy and some require additional anticoagulation. We aimed to investigate the incidence of acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) among PCI patients receiving antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy. METHODS: A population-based study that included all patients undergoing PCI during 2008-2016 in Iceland. Data from the Icelandic Medicines Registry were obtained on all outpatient prescriptions 1 year after first PCI. Patients receiving single or dual-antiplatelet therapy with or without anticoagulation cotherapy were analyzed. Rehospitalization for AGIB and endoscopic data were obtained within the 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 5166 patients (male 75%) underwent PCI during the study period. The incidence of AGIB was 1% (54/5166) per year. The mean age among non-bleeders 65 (±11) years was lower than among bleeders 69 (±9) years (p = .002). The proportion of acute upper GIB (AUGIB) was 56%, whereas lower GIB occurred in 44%. Overall, 41% with AUGIB had PPIs compared to 39% of non-bleeders (NS). The incidence of AGIB among patients on single antiplatelet therapy combined with an anticoagulant was 2.5% compared to 0.9% among those on single antiplatelet treatment alone (p = .028). The number needed to harm (NNH) for treatment with single antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant therapy compared to single antiplatelet therapy was 62 but no deaths related to AGIB. CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year incidence of AGIB was low with no mortality. Bleeding risk was found to be higher among patients on single antiplatelet therapy combined with anticoagulant therapy compared to patients on single antiplatelet therapy alone.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a population-based, five-year follow-up study.

OBJECTIVE: Data on long-term rebleeding risk and mortality in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) patients are scarce and comparison to controls are lacking. Aimsof the study were to assess long-term prognosis of AUGIB patients and compare to controls. METHODS: A population-based retrospective case-control study conducted at the National University Hospital of Iceland and included all patients who underwent endoscopy in 2010-2011. AUGIB was defined as haematemesis or coffee ground vomiting leading to hospitalization or occurring in a hospitalized patient. Controls underwent endoscopy in 2010-2011, matched for sex/age. Rebleeding was defined as AUGIB >14 days up to five years after index bleeding. RESULTS: Overall, 303 patients had AUGIB, mean age 67 (±18), controls66 years (±19), females, 51 and 46%, respectively. The five-year rebleeding rate for AUGIB patients was 13% (95%CI 9-17%), higher than the rate of bleeding events in controls, 3% (95%CI 1-5%; log-rank <0.001), hazard ratio (HR) 6.0 (95%CI 2.4-15) when correcting for comorbidities, NSAID's, PPI's and antithrombotics. The mortality of AUGIB patients at end of follow-up was higher when compared to controls, 39% (95%CI 49-33%) vs. 26% (95%CI 30-21%), log-rank <0.001, comorbidity-adjusted HR 1.4 (1.1-1.9). A subanalysis of non-variceal AUGIB yielded similar results in regard to rebleeding and mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: AUGIB patients were at 6-fold risk of rebleeding compared to bleeding events in controls at five years of follow-up. Five-year mortality was higher in AUGIB patients when compared to controls even when correcting for age and comorbidities, suggesting that an episode of AUGIB indicates serious frailty.