[Irritable bowel syndrome]. / Prikkelbaredarmsyndroom.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent disorder of the gut-brain interaction, of which the multifactorial pathophysiology is still incompletely understood. IBS is a symptom-based diagnosis based on the Rome IV criteria, and additional diagnostics are only indicated when history or physical examination point towards the presence of other (organic) disorders. Diagnosis and treatment should take place in primary care. However, management of IBS can be challenging due to the heterogenous clinical presentation. Furthermore, a variety of treatment options are available, yet only effective in subgroups of patients. Early positive diagnosis, patient education, and shared-decision making are of utmost importance in order to limit individual disease burden and the socioeconomic impact of IBS. In this review we discuss diagnosis, indications for additional investigations or referral to secondary care, and treatment of IBS, based on both the recently updated Dutch guideline and general practice standard on IBS.

Development and Validation of a Remote Monitoring Tool for Assessment of Mild, Moderate, and Severe Infections in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Immunomodulators and biologics are cornerstones in the management of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], but are associated with increased risk of infections. Post-marketing surveillance registries are pivotal to assess this risk, yet mainly focus on severe infections. Data on the prevalence of mild and moderate infections are scarce. We developed and validated a remote monitoring tool for real-world assessment of infections in IBD patients. METHODS: A 7-item Patient-Reported Infections Questionnaire [PRIQ] covering 15 infection categories was developed with a 3-month recall period. Infection severity was defined as mild [self-limiting or topical treatment], moderate [oral antibiotics, antivirals, or antifungals], or severe [hospitalisation or intravenous treatment]. Comprehensiveness and comprehensibility were ascertained through cognitive interviewing of 36 IBD outpatients. After implementation in the telemedicine platform myIBDcoach, a prospective, multicentre cohort study was performed between June 2020 and June 2021 in 584 patients, to assess diagnostic accuracy. Events were cross-checked with general practitioner and pharmacy data [gold standard]. Agreement was evaluated using linear-weighted kappa with cluster-bootstrapping to account for within-patient level correlation. RESULTS: Patient understanding was good and interviews did not result in reduction of PRIQ items. During validation, 584 IBD patients {57.8% female, mean age 48.6 (standard deviaton [SD]: 14.8), disease duration 12.6 years [SD: 10.9]} completed 1386 periodic assessments, reporting 1626 events. Linear-weighted kappa for agreement between PRIQ and gold standard was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-0.94). Sensitivity and specificity for infection [yes/no] were 93.9% [95% CI 91.8-96.0] and 98.5% [95% CI 97.5-99.4], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PRIQ is a valid and accurate remote monitoring tool to assess infections in IBD patients, providing means to personalise medicine based on adequate benefit-risk assessments.

The Socioeconomic Impact of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: An Analysis of Direct and Indirect Health Care Costs.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with substantial costs to society. Extensive data on direct costs (health care consumption) and indirect costs (health-related productivity loss) are lacking. Hence, we examined the socioeconomic costs of IBS and assessed which patient characteristics are associated with higher costs. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from 3 Rome-defined Dutch IBS patient cohorts (n = 419) were collected. Bootstrapped mean direct and indirect costs were evaluated per patient with IBS using validated questionnaires (ie, medical cost questionnaire and productivity cost questionnaire, respectively). Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify variables associated with higher costs. RESULTS: Quarterly mean total costs per patient were €2.156 (95% confidence interval (CI), €1793-€2541 [$2444]), consisting of €802 (95% CI, €625-€1010 [$909]) direct costs and €1.354 (95% CI, €1072-€1670 [$1535]) indirect costs. Direct costs consisted primarily of health care professional consultations, with costs related to gastrointestinal clinic visits accounting for 6% and costs related to mental health care visits for 20%. Higher direct costs were significantly associated with older age (P = .007), unemployment (P = .001), IBS subtypes other than constipation (P = .033), lower disease-specific quality of life (P = .027), and more severe depressive symptoms (P = .001). Indirect costs consisted of absenteeism (45%), presenteeism (42%), and productivity loss related to unpaid labor (13%) and were significantly associated with the male sex (P = .014) and more severe depressive symptoms (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: Productivity loss is the main contributor to the socioeconomic burden of IBS. Direct costs were not predominantly related to gastrointestinal care, but rather to mental health care. Awareness of the nature of costs and contributing patient factors should lead to significant socioeconomic benefits for society.

Symptom-network dynamics in irritable bowel syndrome with comorbid panic disorder using electronic momentary assessment: A randomized controlled trial of escitalopram vs. placebo.

INTRODUCTION: Momentary ecological assessment indicated alleviated abdominal pain in escitalopram treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with comorbid panic disorder. Hitherto, little is known about symptom formation, i.e., how psychological impact physical symptoms, and vice versa, and about the effect of SSRI-treatment on symptom formation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how psychological and somatic symptoms co-vary over time in IBS patients with comorbid panic disorder and how they are affected by escitalopram treatment. METHODS: Experience sampling data from 14 IBS patients with panic disorder were obtained from a single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial on escitalopram versus placebo. At baseline, after three and six months, multilevel time-lagged linear regression analysis was used to construct symptom networks. Network connections represented coefficients between various affect and gastrointestinal items. RESULTS: Connectivity increased up to 3 months in both groups. Between 3 and 6 months, connectivity decreased for placebo and further increased in the escitalopram group. Additionally, a steep increase in node strength for negative affect nodes was observed in the escitalopram network and the opposite for positive affect nodes. Over time, group symptom networks became increasingly different from each other. Anxious-anxious and enthusiastic-relaxed became significantly different between groups at 6 months. The connection that changed significantly in all analyses was anxious-anxious. CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram treatment was associated with changes in the symptom networks in IBS patients with panic disorder. While mood and physical symptoms improve over time, mainly connectivity between mood nodes changed, possibly pointing towards a healthier emotion regulation resulting in alleviation of physical symptoms.

Use of Rome criteria for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: a survey among European countries.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The majority of patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are diagnosed and treated in primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate the implementation of the Rome criteria in daily primary care clinical practice and adherence of general practitioners (GPs) to recommended diagnostic approaches for IBS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A survey consisting of 18 questions was distributed across 11 European countries and was used to assess GPs' diagnostic approach of IBS, the use of Rome criteria in daily practice and GPs' perspective on the aetiology of the disorder. RESULTS: Overall, 185 GPs completed the survey. In daily clinical practice, 32% of GPs reported that they usually make a positive diagnosis on the basis of symptoms only, whereas 36% of GPs reported regular use of the Rome criteria to diagnose IBS. Furthermore, 62% of the responders reported that they applied additional diagnostics, such as blood tests, 31% found it necessary to perform endoscopy to make a positive diagnosis of IBS and 29% referred patients with IBS to a specialist. Psychological factors were the most frequently selected potential aetiological factor of IBS (88% of GPs). Overall, 52% of GPs reported systematically including questions on psychological symptoms in the assessment of history of IBS. CONCLUSION: Only about one-third of GPs regularly used the Rome criteria to diagnose IBS. In daily primary care practice, IBS largely remains a diagnosis of exclusion. This has implications in terms of GPs' specialty training and questions the applicability of IBS guidelines in daily care, which advocate an early, positive, symptom-based diagnosis.