Capsules for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders- A Game Changer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the last few decades, there have been remarkable strides in endoscopy and radiological imaging that have advanced gastroenterology. However, the management of neurogastroenterological disorders has lagged behind, in part handicapped by the use of catheter-based manometry that is both non-physiological and uncomfortable. The advent of capsule technology has been a game changer for both diagnostic and therapeutic applications. RECENT FINDINGS: Here, we discuss several capsule devices that are available or under investigation. There are three technologies that are FDA approved. Wireless motility capsule measures pH and pressure and provides clinically impactful information regarding gastric, small intestine and colonic transit, without radiation that has been demonstrated to guide management of gastroparesis, dyspepsia and constipation. Wireless ambulatory pH monitoring capsule is currently the gold standard for assessing gastroesophageal acid reflux. In the therapeutics arena, an orally ingested vibrating capsule has been recently FDA approved for the treatment of chronic constipation, supported by a robust phase 3 clinical trial which showed significant improvement in constipation symptoms and quality of life. There are several capsules currently under investigation. Smart capsule bacterial detection system and Capscan® are capsules that can sample fluid in the small or large bowel and provide microbiome analysis for detection of small intestinal bacterial (SIBO) or fungal overgrowth (SIFO). Another investigational gas sensing capsule analyzing hydrogen, CO2, volatile fatty acids and capsule orientation, can measure regional gut transit time and luminal gas concentrations and assess gastroparesis, constipation or SIBO. Therapeutically, other vibrating capsules are in development. Innovations in capsule technology are poised to transform our ability to investigate gut function physiologically, and non-invasively deliver targeted treatment(s), thereby providing both accurate diagnostic information and luminally-directed, safe therapy.

Review of the indications, methods, and clinical utility of anorectal manometry and the rectal balloon expulsion test.

BACKGROUND: Anorectal manometry (ARM) comprehensively assesses anorectal sensorimotor functions. PURPOSE: This review examines the indications, techniques, interpretation, strengths, and weaknesses of high-resolution ARM (HR-ARM), 3-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry (3D-HR-ARM), and portable ARM, and other assessments (i.e., rectal sensation and rectal balloon expulsion test) that are performed alongside manometry. It is based on a literature search of articles related to ARM in adults. HR-ARM and 3D-HR-ARM are useful for diagnosing defecatory disorders (DD), to identify anorectal sensorimotor dysfunction and guide management in patients with fecal incontinence (FI), constipation, megacolon, and megarectum; and to screen for anorectal structural (e.g., rectal intussusception) abnormalities. The rectal balloon expulsion test is a useful, low-cost, radiation-free, outpatient assessment tool for impaired evacuation that is performed and interpreted in conjunction with ARM. The anorectal function tests should be interpreted with reference to age- and sex-matched normal values, clinical features, and results of other tests. A larger database of technique-specific normal values and newer paradigms of analyzing anorectal pressure profiles will increase the precision and diagnostic utility of HR-ARM for identifying abnormal mechanisms of defecation and continence.

Long-Term Risks of Parkinson's Disease, Surgery, and Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Slow-Transit Constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Long-term outcomes of constipation have not been evaluated fully. We investigated the incidence of Parkinson's disease, constipation-related surgery, and colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with constipation and slow-transit constipation (STC), followed up for up to 20 years. METHODS: We collected data from 2165 patients (33.1% men; median patient age, 54 y; median symptom duration, 5.0 y) with a diagnosis of constipation (based on Rome II criteria) who underwent an anorectal function test and a colonic transit time study, from 2000 through 2010, at a tertiary university hospital in Seoul, South Korea. The presence of STC was determined from colonic transit time. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to analyze and compare cumulative probabilities of a new diagnosis of Parkinson's disease or CRC according to the presence of STC. The patients were followed up until the end of 2019. RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 4.7 years (interquartile range, 0.7-8.3 y), 10 patients underwent constipation-related surgery. The cumulative probabilities of constipation-related surgery were 0.7% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years after a diagnosis of constipation. Twenty-nine patients (1.3%) developed Parkinson's disease; the cumulative probabilities were 0.4% at 1 year, 1.0% at 5 years, and 2.6% at 10 years after a diagnosis of constipation. At 10 years, 1.3% of patients with STC required constipation-related surgery and 3.5% of patients with STC developed Parkinson's disease; in contrast, none of the patients without STC required constipation-related surgery (P = .003), and 1.5% developed Parkinson's disease (P = .019). In multivariate analysis, patient age of 65 years or older at the diagnosis of constipation (hazard ratio, 4.834; 95% CI, 2.088-11.190) and the presence of STC (hazard ratio, 2.477; 95% CI, 1.046-5.866) were associated independently with the development of Parkinson's disease. Only 5 patients had a new diagnosis of CRC during the follow-up period. The risk of CRC did not differ significantly between patients with vs without STC (P = .575). CONCLUSIONS: In a long-term follow-up study of patients with constipation in Korea, most patients had no severe complications. However, patients older than age 65 years with a new diagnosis of STC might be considered for Parkinson's disease screening.

Randomised clinical trial: linaclotide vs placebo-a study of bi-directional gut and brain axis.

BACKGROUND: Linaclotide, a guanylate cyclase C agonist relieves irritable bowel syndrome with predominant constipation (IBS-C) symptoms, but how it improves pain in humans is unknown. AIMS: To investigate the effects of linaclotide and placebo on the afferent and efferent gut-brain-gut signalling in IBS-C patients, in a randomised clinical trial. METHODS: Patients with IBS-C (Rome III) and rectal hypersensitivity were randomised (2:1) to receive linaclotide (290 µg) or placebo for 10 weeks and undergo bi-directional gut and brain axis assessment using anorectal electrical stimulations and transcranial/transspinal-anorectal magnetic stimulations. Rectal sensations were examined by balloon distention. Assessments included abdominal pain, bowel symptoms and quality of life (QOL) scores. Primary outcomes were latencies of recto-cortical and cortico-rectal evoked potentials. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients participated; 26 received linaclotide and 13 received placebo. Rectal cortical evoked potentials latencies (milliseconds) were significantly prolonged with linaclotide compared to baseline (P1:Δ 19 ± 6, P < 0.005; N1:Δ 20 ± 7, P < 0.02) but not with placebo (P1:Δ 3 ± 5; N1:Δ 4.7 ± 5,P = 0.3) or between groups. The efferent cortico-anorectal and spino-anorectal latencies were unchanged. The maximum tolerable rectal volume (cc) increased significantly with linaclotide compared to baseline (P < 0.001) and placebo (Δ 29 ± 10 vs 4 ± 20, (P < 0.03). Abdominal pain decreased (P < 0.001) with linaclotide but not between groups. Complete spontaneous bowel movement frequency increased (P < 0.001), and IBS-QOL scores improved (P = 0.01) with linaclotide compared to baseline and placebo. There was no difference in overall responders between linaclotide and placebo (54% vs 23%, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Linaclotide prolongs afferent gut-brain signalling from baseline but both afferent and efferent signalling were unaffected compared to placebo. Linaclotide significantly improves rectal hypersensitivity, IBS-C symptoms and QOL compared to placebo. These mechanisms may explain the effects of linaclotide on pain relief in IBS-C patients. ClinicalTrials.Gov: Registered at Clinical trials.gov no NCT02078323.

Prevalence of Disaccharidase Deficiency in Adults With Unexplained Gastrointestinal Symptoms.

Background/Aims: Disaccharidase assay is used for assessing carbohydrate intolerance in children, but its usefulness in adults is not known. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of disaccharidase deficiency in patients with unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms. Methods: A retrospective review of adults with chronic (> 1 year) abdominal symptoms and negative imaging and endoscopy/colonoscopy and who completed bowel symptom questionnaire and duodenal biopsy for lactase, maltase, sucrase, and palatinase was performed. A subset also underwent 25 g lactose breath test (LBT). Results: One hundred twenty patients (females = 83) were evaluated, of whom 48 also underwent LBT. Fifty-six (46.7%) patients had enzyme deficiency; 44 (36.7%) had single (either lactase or maltase), 1 had 3 enzyme deficiencies, 11 (9.2 %) had all 4 disaccharidase enzyme (pan-disaccharidase) deficiency, and 64 (53.0%) had normal enzyme levels. Baseline prevalence and severity of 11 gastrointestinal symptoms were similar between normal and single enzyme deficiency groups. The sensitivity and specificity of LBT was 78.3% and 72.0%, respectively and overall agreement with lactase deficiency was 75.0%. Conclusions: Isolated disaccharidase deficiency occurs in adults, usually lactase and rarely maltase, and pan-disaccharidase deficiency is rare. Baseline symptoms or its severity did not predict enzyme deficiency.

Brain fogginess, gas and bloating: a link between SIBO, probiotics and metabolic acidosis.

BACKGROUND: D-lactic acidosis is characterized by brain fogginess (BF) and elevated D-lactate and occurs in short bowel syndrome. Whether it occurs in patients with an intact gut and unexplained gas and bloating is unknown. We aimed to determine if BF, gas and bloating is associated with D-lactic acidosis and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). METHODS: Patients with gas, bloating, BF, intact gut, and negative endoscopic and radiological tests, and those without BF were evaluated. SIBO was assessed with glucose breath test (GBT) and duodenal aspiration/culture. Metabolic assessments included urinary D-lactic acid and blood L-lactic acid, and ammonia levels. Bowel symptoms, and gastrointestinal transit were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty patients with BF and 8 without BF were evaluated. Abdominal bloating, pain, distension and gas were the most severe symptoms and their prevalence was similar between groups. In BF group, all consumed probiotics. SIBO was more prevalent in BF than non-BF group (68 vs. 28%, p = 0.05). D-lactic acidosis was more prevalent in BF compared to non-BF group (77 vs. 25%, p = 0.006). BF was reproduced in 20/30 (66%) patients. Gastrointestinal transit was slow in 10/30 (33%) patients with BF and 2/8 (25%) without. Other metabolic tests were unremarkable. After discontinuation of probiotics and a course of antibiotics, BF resolved and gastrointestinal symptoms improved significantly (p = 0.005) in 23/30 (77%). CONCLUSIONS: We describe a syndrome of BF, gas and bloating, possibly related to probiotic use, SIBO, and D-lactic acidosis in a cohort without short bowel. Patients with BF exhibited higher prevalence of SIBO and D-lactic acidosis. Symptoms improved with antibiotics and stopping probiotics. Clinicians should recognize and treat this condition.

Update on the Pathophysiology and Management of Anorectal Disorders.

Anorectal disorders are common and present with overlapping symptoms. They include several disorders with both structural and functional dysfunction(s). Because symptoms alone are poor predictors of the underlying pathophysiology, a diagnosis should only be made after evaluating symptoms and physiologic and structural abnormalities. A detailed history, a thorough physical and digital rectal examination and a systematic evaluation with high resolution and/or high definition three-dimensional (3D) anorectal manometry, 3D anal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance defecography and neurophysiology tests are essential to correctly identify these conditions. These physiological and imaging tests play a key role in facilitating a precise diagnosis and in providing a better understanding of the pathophysiology and functional anatomy. In turn, this leads to better and more comprehensive management using medical, behavioral and surgical approaches. For example, patients presenting with difficult defecation may demonstrate dyssynergic defecation and will benefit from biofeedback therapy before considering surgical treatment of coexisting anomalies such as rectoceles or intussusception. Similarly, patients with significant rectal prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction or patients with complex enteroceles and pelvic organ prolapse may benefit from combined behavioral and surgical approaches, including an open, laparoscopic, transabdominal or transanal, and/or robotic-assisted surgery. Here, we provide an update on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of selected common anorectal disorders.

Apprenticeship-based training in neurogastroenterology and motility.

INTRODUCTION: Although neurogastroenterology and motility (NGM) disorders affect 50% of patients seen in clinics, many gastroenterologists receive limited NGM training. One-month apprenticeship-based NGM training has been provided at ten centers in the USA for a decade, however, outcomes of this training are unclear. Our goal was to describe the effectiveness of this program from a trainees perspective. Areas covered: We describe the training model, learning experiences, and outcomes of one-month apprenticeship-based training in NGM at a center of excellence, using a detailed individual observer account and data from 12 consecutive trainees that completed the program. During a one-month training period, 302 procedures including; breath tests (BT) n = 132, anorectal manometry (ARM) n = 29 and esophageal manometry (EM) n = 28, were performed. Post-training, all trainees (n = 12) knew indications for motility tests, and the majority achieved independence in basic interpretation of BT, EM and ARM. Additionally, in a multiple-choice NGM written-test paper, trainees achieved significant improvements in test scores post-training (P = 0.003). Expert commentary: One-month training at a high-volume center can facilitate rapid learning of NGM and the indications, basic interpretation and utility of motility tests. Trainees demonstrate significant independence, and this training model provides an ideal platform for those interested in sub-specialty NGM.

Surgical Interventions and the Use of Device-Aided Therapy for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence and Defecatory Disorders.

The purpose of this clinical practice update expert review is to describe the key principles in the use of surgical interventions and device-aided therapy for managing fecal incontinence (FI) and defecatory disorders. The best practices outlined in this review are based on relevant publications, including systematic reviews and expert opinion (when applicable). Best Practice Advice 1: A stepwise approach should be followed for management of FI. Conservative therapies (diet, fluids, techniques to improve evacuation, a bowel training program, management of diarrhea and constipation with diet and medications if necessary) will benefit approximately 25% of patients and should be tried first. Best Practice Advice 2: Pelvic floor retraining with biofeedback therapy is recommended for patients with FI who do not respond to the conservative measures indicated above. Best Practice Advice 3: Perianal bulking agents such as intra-anal injection of dextranomer may be considered when conservative measures and biofeedback therapy fail. Best Practice Advice 4: Sacral nerve stimulation should be considered for patients with moderate or severe FI in whom symptoms have not responded after a 3-month or longer trial of conservative measures and biofeedback therapy and who do not have contraindications to these procedures. Best Practice Advice 5: Until further evidence is available, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation should not be used for managing FI in clinical practice. Best Practice Advice 6: Barrier devices should be offered to patients who have failed conservative or surgical therapy, or in those who have failed conservative therapy who do not want or are not eligible for more invasive interventions. Best Practice Advice 7: Anal sphincter repair (sphincteroplasty) should be considered in postpartum women with FI and in patients with recent sphincter injuries. In patients who present later with symptoms of FI unresponsive to conservative and biofeedback therapy and evidence of sphincter damage, sphincteroplasty may be considered when perianal bulking injection and sacral nerve stimulation are not available or have proven unsuccessful. Best Practice Advice 8: The artificial anal sphincter, dynamic graciloplasty, may be considered for patients with medically refractory severe FI who have failed treatment or are not candidates for barrier devices, sacral nerve stimulation, perianal bulking injection, sphincteroplasty and a colostomy. Best Practice Advice 9: Major anatomic defects (eg, rectovaginal fistula, full-thickness rectal prolapse, fistula in ano, or cloaca-like deformity) should be rectified with surgery. Best Practice Advice 10: A colostomy should be considered in patients with severe FI who have failed conservative treatment and have failed or are not candidates for barrier devices, minimally invasive surgical interventions, and sphincteroplasty. Best Practice Advice 11: A magnetic anal sphincter device may be considered for patients with medically refractory severe FI who have failed or are not candidates for barrier devices, perianal bulking injection, sacral nerve stimulation, sphincteroplasty, or a colostomy. Data regarding efficacy are limited and 40% of patients had moderate or severe complications. Best Practice Advice 12: For defecatory disorders, biofeedback therapy is the treatment of choice. Best Practice Advice 13: Based on limited evidence, sacral nerve stimulation should not be used for managing defecatory disorders in clinical practice. Best Practice Advice 14: Anterograde colonic enemas are not effective in the long term for management of defecatory disorders. Best Practice Advice 15: The stapled transanal rectal resection and related procedures should not be routinely performed for correction of structural abnormalities in patients with defecatory disorders.

Diagnosis and management of chronic constipation in adults.

Constipation is a heterogeneous, polysymptomatic, multifactorial disease. Acute or transient constipation can be due to changes in diet, travel or stress, and secondary constipation can result from drug treatment, neurological or metabolic conditions or, rarely, colon cancer. A diagnosis of primary chronic constipation is made after exclusion of secondary causes of constipation and encompasses several overlapping subtypes. Slow-transit constipation is characterized by prolonged colonic transit in the absence of pelvic floor dysfunction. This subtype of constipation can be identified using either the radio-opaque marker test or wireless motility capsule test, and is best treated with laxatives such as polyethylene glycol or newer agents such as linaclotide or lubiprostone. If unsuccessful, subspecialist referral should be considered. Dyssynergic defecation results from impaired coordination of rectoanal and pelvic floor muscles, and causes difficulty with defecation. The condition can be identified using anorectal manometry and balloon expulsion tests and is best managed with biofeedback therapy. Opioid-induced constipation is an emerging entity, and several drugs including naloxegol, methylnaltrexone and lubiprostone are approved for its treatment. In this Review, we provide an overview of the burden and pathophysiology of chronic constipation, as well as a detailed discussion of the available diagnostic tools and treatment options.

A Review of Esophageal Chest Pain.

Noncardiac chest pain is a term that encompasses all causes of chest pain after a cardiac source has been excluded. This article focuses on esophageal sources for chest pain. Esophageal chest pain (ECP) is common, affects quality of life, and carries a substantial health care burden. The lack of a systematic approach toward the diagnosis and treatment of ECP has led to significant disability and increased health care costs for this condition. Identifying the underlying cause(s) or mechanism(s) for chest pain is key for its successful management. Common etiologies include gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophageal hypersensitivity, dysmotility, and psychological conditions, including panic disorder and anxiety. However, the pathophysiology of this condition is not yet fully understood. Randomized controlled trials have shown that proton pump inhibitor therapy (either omeprazole, lansoprazole, or rabeprazole) can be effective. Evidence for the use of antidepressants and the adenosine receptor antagonist theophylline is fair. Psychological treatments, notably cognitive behavioral therapy, may be useful in select patients. Surgery is not recommended. There remains a large unmet need for identifying the phenotype and prevalence of pathophysiologic mechanisms of ECP as well as for well-designed multicenter clinical trials of current and novel therapies.

Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and classification of fecal incontinence: state of the science summary for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) workshop.

In August 2013, the National Institutes of Health sponsored a conference to address major gaps in our understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of fecal incontinence (FI) and to identify topics for future clinical research. This article is the first of a two-part summary of those proceedings. FI is a common symptom, with a prevalence that ranges from 7 to 15% in community-dwelling men and women, but it is often underreported, as providers seldom screen for FI and patients do not volunteer the symptom, even though the symptoms can have a devastating impact on the quality of life. Rough estimates suggest that FI is associated with a substantial economic burden, particularly in patients who require surgical therapy. Bowel disturbances, particularly diarrhea, the symptom of rectal urgency, and burden of chronic illness are the strongest independent risk factors for FI in the community. Smoking, obesity, and inappropriate cholecystectomy are emerging, potentially modifiable risk factors. Other risk factors for FI include advanced age, female gender, disease burden (comorbidity count, diabetes), anal sphincter trauma (obstetrical injury, prior surgery), and decreased physical activity. Neurological disorders, inflammatory bowel disease, and pelvic floor anatomical disturbances (rectal prolapse) are also associated with FI. The pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for FI include diarrhea, anal and pelvic floor weakness, reduced rectal compliance, and reduced or increased rectal sensation; many patients have multifaceted anorectal dysfunctions. The type (urge, passive or combined), etiology (anorectal disturbance, bowel symptoms, or both), and severity of FI provide the basis for classifying FI; these domains can be integrated to comprehensively characterize the symptom. Several validated scales for classifying symptom severity and its impact on the quality of life are available. Symptom severity scales should incorporate the frequency, volume, consistency, and nature (urge or passive) of stool leakage. Despite the basic understanding of FI, there are still major knowledge gaps in disease epidemiology and pathogenesis, necessitating future clinical research in FI.

Esophageal pressure topography, body position, and hiatal hernia.

INTRODUCTION: Whether body position affects lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function and detection of hiatal hernia is unknown. Moreover, the yield of high-resolution esophageal pressure topography (HREPT) when compared with endoscopy for detection of hiatal hernia is unclear. AIM: The aims of this study were to examine (a) the effects of body position (standing vs. supine) on LES function, and (b) to determine the diagnostic yield of HREPT and endoscopy for detection of hiatal hernia. METHODS: A total of 50 subjects underwent both HREPT and endoscopy. The manometric/topographic changes of LES were examined in both supine and standing positions. Endoscopy assessed presence and length of hiatal hernia. Diagnostic agreement was compared between HREPT and endoscopy. RESULTS: The resting LES pressure was higher (P=0.0001), its mean length was longer (P=0.0003), and length of high-pressure zone was longer (P=0.0001) in the standing position compared with the supine position. HREPT detected twice as many subjects with hiatal hernia in standing (P=0.0001) compared with supine position or endoscopy with significant new diagnostic information (79%). Endoscopy detection rate (34%) was similar to supine manometry with good diagnostic agreement (77%) between HREPT and endoscopy. Hiatal hernia length was longer (P=0.0001) with HREPT in standing position compared with endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Body position significantly affects in the LES function and its measurements. HREPT when performed on standing position offers the best yield for detection of hiatal hernia and is superior to endoscopy or supine manometry.

Treatment of esophageal (noncardiac) chest pain: an expert review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chest pain is a common and frightening symptom. Once cardiac disease has been excluded, an esophageal source is most likely. Pathophysiologically, gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophageal dysmotility, esophageal hypersensitivity, and anxiety disorders have been implicated. However, treatment remains a challenge. Here we examined the efficacy and safety of various commonly used modalities for treatment of esophageal (noncardiac) chest pain (ECP) and provided evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: We reviewed the English language literature for drug trials evaluating treatment of ECP in PubMed, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases from 1968-2012. Standard forms were used to abstract data regarding study design, duration, outcome measures and adverse events, and study quality. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies comprising various treatments were included and grouped under 5 broad categories. Patient inclusion criteria were extremely variable, and studies were generally small with methodological concerns. There was good evidence to support the use of omeprazole and fair evidence for lansoprazole, rabeprazole, theophylline, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, imipramine, and cognitive behavioral therapy. There was poor evidence for nifedipine, diltiazem, paroxetine, biofeedback therapy, ranitidine, nitrates, botulinum toxin, esophageal myotomy, and hypnotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Ideally, treatment of ECP should be aimed at correcting the underlying mechanism(s) and relieving symptoms. Proton pump inhibitors, antidepressants, theophylline, and cognitive behavioral therapy appear to be useful for the treatment of ECP. However, there is urgent and unmet need for effective treatments and for rigorous, randomized controlled trials.

Effect of linaclotide on severe abdominal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) have abdominal symptoms that vary in severity. Linaclotide, a guanylate cyclase-C agonist, improves abdominal and bowel symptoms in these patients. We examined the prevalence of severe abdominal symptoms in patients with IBS-C and assessed the effects of linaclotide on abdominal symptoms, global measures, and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: In two phase 3 trials, patients who met modified Rome II criteria for IBS-C were randomly assigned to groups given oral, once-daily linaclotide (290 µg) or placebo for 12 weeks. During the baseline (2 weeks prior to treatment) and treatment periods, patients rated abdominal pain, discomfort, bloating, fullness, and cramping daily (from 0 = none to 10 = very severe). Linaclotide's effects on abdominal symptoms, global measures, and IBS-related QOL were assessed in subpopulations of patients who rated specific individual abdominal symptoms as severe (≥ 7.0) at baseline. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (1602 patients; 797 receiving placebo and 805 receiving linaclotide), baseline prevalence values for severe abdominal symptoms were 44% for bloating, 44% for fullness, 32% for discomfort, 23% for pain, and 22% for cramping, with considerable overlap among symptoms. In patients with severe symptoms, linaclotide reduced all abdominal symptoms; mean changes from baseline severity scores ranged from -2.7 to -3.4 for linaclotide vs -1.4 to -1.9 for placebo (P < .0001). Linaclotide improved global measures (P < .0001) and IBS-QOL scores (P < .01) compared with placebo. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event of linaclotide in patients with severe abdominal symptoms (18.8%-21.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Of 5 severe abdominal symptoms assessed, bloating and fullness were most prevalent in patients with IBS-C. Linaclotide significantly improved all abdominal symptoms, global measures, and IBS-QOL in subpopulations of IBS-C patients with severe abdominal symptoms. Clinicaltrials.gov NUMBERS: NCT00938717, NCT00948818.

Medical and surgical management of pelvic floor disorders affecting defecation.

Pelvic floor disorders that affect stool evacuation include structural (for example, rectocele) and functional disorders (for example, dyssynergic defecation (DD)). Meticulous history, digital rectal examination (DRE), and physiological tests such as anorectal manometry, colonic transit study, balloon expulsion, and imaging studies such as anal ultrasound, defecography, and static and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can facilitate an objective diagnosis and optimal treatment. Management consists of education and counseling regarding bowel function, diet, laxatives, most importantly behavioral and biofeedback therapies, and finally surgery. Randomized clinical trials have established that biofeedback therapy is effective in treating DD. Because DD may coexist with conditions such as solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) and rectocele, before considering surgery, biofeedback therapy should be tried and an accurate assessment of the entire pelvis and its function should be performed. Several surgical approaches have been advocated for the treatment of pelvic floor disorders including open, laparoscopic, and transabdominal approach, stapled transanal rectal resection, and robotic colon and rectal resections. However, there is lack of well-controlled randomized studies and the efficacy of these surgical procedures remains to be established.