Is a Simplified, Less Restrictive Low FODMAP Diet Possible? Results from a Double-Blind, Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

A low fermentable oligo-, mono-, di-saccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) diet (LFD) is the most evidence-based dietary therapy for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).1 However, the current step-down approach to the LFD has significant limitations including being costly, complex, time-consuming, and associated with reduced dietary intake of some micronutrients.2-4 Recently, a step-up approach has been proposed that restricts only a limited number of FODMAPs initially, evaluating symptom response and restricting additional FODMAPs only if necessary.2,5,6 In a double-blind trial, fructans and galacto-oligosaccharides were found to be the most likely FODMAP subgroups to trigger IBS symptoms.7 To date, no study has compared the efficacy of a traditional LFD restriction phase with a more targeted or simplified restriction phase. In a double-blind, pilot-feasibility randomized controlled trial, we compared the efficacy of a 4-week FODMAP-simple restriction phase (eliminating solely fructans and galactooligosaccharides) and a traditional LFD restriction phase in patients with IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D) (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT05831306).

Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trial of Vibrating Capsule for Chronic Constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite therapeutic advances, effective treatments for chronic constipation remain an unmet need. The vibrating capsule is a nonpharmacologic, orally ingested, programmable capsule that vibrates intraluminally to induce bowel movements. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of the vibrating capsule in patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with chronic constipation, who were randomized to receive either a vibrating or placebo capsule, once daily, 5 days a week for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end points were an increase of 1 or more complete spontaneous bowel movements per week (CSBM1 responder) or 2 or more CSBMs per week (CSBM2) from baseline during at least 6 of the 8 weeks. Safety analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among 904 patients screened, 312 were enrolled. A greater percentage of patients receiving the vibrating capsule achieved both primary efficacy end points compared with placebo (39.3% vs 22.1%, P = .001 for CSBM1; 22.7% vs 11.4% P = .008 for CSBM2). Significantly greater improvements were seen with the vibrating capsule for the secondary end points of straining, stool consistency, and quality-of-life measures compared with placebo. Adverse events were mild, gastrointestinal in nature, and similar between groups, except that a mild vibrating sensation was reported by 11% of patients in the vibrating capsule group, but none withdrew from the trial. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic constipation, the vibrating capsule was superior to placebo in improving bowel symptoms and quality of life. The vibrating capsule was safe and well tolerated. (Clinical trials.gov, Number: NCT03879239).

Prevalence and Burden of Illness of Rome IV Irritable Bowel Syndrome in the United States: Results From a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The estimated prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) using Rome IV criteria in the United States (US) ranges from 4.7% to 5.3%, although these estimates arise from studies with relatively small sample sizes. This study assessed the prevalence of IBS and its associated burden of illness using a nationally representative data set with nearly 89,000 people in the US. METHODS: From May 3 to June 24, 2020, we performed an online survey described to participating adults aged ≥18 years old as a "national health survey." We recruited a representative sample of people in the US to complete the survey, which included the Rome IV IBS questionnaire, National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) gastrointestinal scales, and questions on health care-seeking behavior. RESULTS: Overall, 88,607 people completed the survey, of whom 5414 (6.1%) met Rome IV IBS criteria: mixed IBS (n = 1838 [33.9%]), constipation-predominant IBS (n = 1819 [33.6%]), diarrhea-predominant IBS (n = 1521 [28.1%]), and unsubtyped IBS (n = 236 [4.4%]). Women had higher odds for IBS compared with men, whereas racial/ethnic minorities had lower odds for IBS vs non-Hispanic Whites. Across the 3 main subtypes, 68.2% to 73.2% of people reported ever seeking care for their IBS symptoms, whereas 53.8% to 58.9% did so in the past 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide US survey, we found that Rome IV IBS is slightly more prevalent (6.1%) vs prior estimates (4.7%-5.3%). Additional research is needed to determine whether this higher prevalence is in part due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic during which this study was conducted.

All FODMAPs Aren't Created Equal: Results of a Randomized Reintroduction Trial in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A diet low in fermentable oligo, di, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) is one of the recommended management strategies for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, while effective, adherence to restricting dietary FODMAPs can be challenging and burdensome. The question remains whether limiting all FODMAPs during the restrictive phase of the diet is necessary for symptomatic improvement in the dietary treatment of IBS, or if targeting selected groups of FODMAPs for restriction is sufficient for clinical response. Our study aimed to determine which individual FODMAPs are most likely to lead to symptom generation in patients with IBS who have improved with fodmap restriction. METHODS: Patients meeting Rome IV criteria for IBS were invited to participate in a 12-week study to identify individual FODMAP sensitivities. Those subjects who demonstrated symptom improvement after a 2- to 4-week open-label FODMAP elimination period were recruited to a 10-week blinded-phased FODMAP reintroduction phase of 7 days for each FODMAP. Throughout the study period, daily symptom severity (0-10 point numerical rating system) was recorded. A mixed effect statistical analysis model was used. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2020, 45 subjects were enrolled. Twenty-five subjects improved with FODMAP elimination, and 21 patients continued into the reintroduction phase of the study. Fructans and galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) both were associated with worsened abdominal pain (P = .007 and P = .04, respectively). GOS were associated with an increase in bloating (P = 03). Both bloating and abdominal pain worsened throughout the study, regardless of the FODMAP reintroduction (P = .006). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the reintroduction of select FODMAPs may be responsible for symptom generation in patients with IBS who have responded to a low FODMAP diet, and provide a strong rationale for performing a future trial comparing the treatment effects of a limited low-FODMAP diet and a standard low-FODMAP diet. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT03052439.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

Optimizing Cost-Effective Care for Chronic Constipation in General Gastroenterology Using an Office-Based, Point-Of-Care Test (RED): Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Minimization Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness/cost-savings of point-of-care anorectal function testing with an investigational device (RED) to triage therapy for chronic constipation in general gastroenterology. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to evaluate cost-effectiveness/cost-savings over a 1-year time horizon comparing empiric drug/pelvic floor physical therapy to testing guided care. RESULTS: RED appears to inform the cost-effective strategy for chronic constipation. Compared with usual care without RED, it reduces insurer costs by $810 and patient costs by $6,903. DISCUSSION: Point-of-care testing using RED appears cost-effective/cost-saving to triage chronic constipation care in general gastroenterology.

Optimizing the Management Algorithm for Adults With Functional Constipation Failing a Fiber/Laxative Trial in General Gastroenterology: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Minimization Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Anorectal function testing is traditionally relegated to subspecialty centers. Yet, it is an office-based procedure that appears capable of triaging care for the many patients with Rome IV functional constipation that fail empiric over-the-counter therapy in general gastroenterology, as an alternative to empirical prescription drugs. We aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of routine anorectal function testing in this specific population. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the patient perspective and a cost-minimization analysis from the insurer perspective to compare 3 strategies: (i) empiric prescription drugs followed by pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) for drug failure, (ii) empiric PFPT followed by prescription drugs for PFPT failure, or (iii) care directed by up-front anorectal function testing. Model inputs were derived from systematic reviews of prospective clinical trials, national cost data sets, and observational cohort studies of the impact of chronic constipation on health outcomes, healthcare costs, and work productivity. RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategy was upfront anorectal function testing to triage patients to appropriate therapy, in which the subset of patients without anal hypocontractility on anorectal manometry and with a balloon expulsion time of at least 6.5 seconds would be referred to PFPT. In sensitivity analysis, empiric PFPT was more cost effective than empiric prescription drugs except for situations in which the primary goal of treatment was to increase bowel movement frequency. If adopted, gastroenterologists would refer ∼17 patients per year to PFPT, supporting feasibility. DISCUSSION: Anorectal function testing seems to be an emergent technology to optimize cost-effective outcomes, overcoming testing costs by phenotyping care.

Abdominal Symptom Improvement During Clinical Trials of Tenapanor in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of tenapanor on abdominal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Abdominal symptoms assessed included pain, discomfort, bloating, cramping, and fullness. METHODS: The abdominal symptom data were pooled from 3 randomized controlled trials (NCT01923428, T3MPO-1 [NCT02621892], and T3MPO-2 [NCT02686138]). Weekly scores were calculated for each abdominal symptom, and the Abdominal Score (AS) was derived as the average of weekly scores for abdominal pain, discomfort, and bloating. The overall change from baseline during the 12 weeks was assessed for each symptom weekly score and the AS. The AS 6/12-week and 9/12-week response rates (AS improvement of ≥2 points for ≥6/12- or ≥9/12-week) were also evaluated. The association of weekly AS response status (reduction of ≥30%) with weekly complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) status (=0 and >0) was assessed. RESULTS: Among 1,372 patients (684 tenapanor [50 mg twice a day] and 688 placebo), the least squares mean change from baseline in AS was -2.66 for tenapanor vs -2.09 for placebo ( P < 0.0001). The 6/12-week AS response rate was 44.4% for tenapanor vs 32.4% for placebo ( P < 0.0001), and for 9/12-week AS, 30.6% for tenapanor vs 20.5% for placebo ( P < 0.0001). A significant association between weekly CSBM status and weekly AS response status was observed each week ( P < 0.0001), with a greater proportion achieving an AS reduction in patients with >0 CSBMs in a week. DISCUSSION: Tenapanor significantly reduced abdominal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, particularly pain, discomfort, and bloating measured by AS, compared with placebo.

Percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation for adolescents with irritable bowel syndrome: Cost-benefit and cost-minimization analysis.

Abdominal pain drives significant cost for adolescents with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We performed an economic analysis to estimate cost-savings for patients' families and healthcare insurance, and health outcomes, based on abdominal pain improvement with percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation (PENFS) with IB-Stim® (Neuraxis). We constructed a Markov model with a 1-year time horizon comparing outcomes and costs with PENFS versus usual care without PENFS. Clinical outcomes were derived from a sham-controlled double-blind trial of PENFS for adolescents with IBS. Costs/work-productivity impact for parents were derived from appropriate observational cohorts. PENFS was associated with 18 added healthy days over 1 year of follow-up, increased annual parental wages of $5,802 due to fewer missed work days to care for the child, and $4744 in cost-savings to insurance. Percutaneous electrical field nerve stimulation for adolescents with IBS appears to yield significant cost-savings to patients' families and insurance.

Abdominal Bloating in the United States: Results of a Survey of 88,795 Americans Examining Prevalence and Healthcare Seeking.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although abdominal bloating is a common symptom, comparatively little is known about its prevalence in the community. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of bloating and assess related health care seeking using survey data from a nationally representative sample of nearly 89,000 Americans. METHODS: Participants completed the National Gastrointestinal (GI) Survey II to measure the presence and severity of GI symptoms including bloating. We assessed the prevalence of bloating in the past 7 days, as well as severity and health care seeking for bloating. Multivariable regression was performed to identify associations between the outcomes and covariates. RESULTS: Of 88,795 survey completers, 12,324 (13.9%) reported bloating in the past 7 days. Women and those with comorbidities (eg, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic constipation, ulcerative colitis) and concomitant GI symptoms (eg, abdominal pain, excess gas) had higher odds for bloating (all P < .001). These factors were also associated with more severe bloating (all P < .001). Among those who reported recent bloating, 58.5% never sought care for bloating-29% of whom were self-managing symptoms or were uncomfortable discussing symptoms with their providers. CONCLUSIONS: Bloating is common in the community because nearly 1 in 7 Americans have experienced this symptom in the past week. Women and those with certain comorbidities and concomitant GI symptoms are more likely to experience bloating and have more severe symptoms. Nearly one third of sufferers who have not sought care are managing symptoms on their own or are uncomfortable discussing it with their providers, emphasizing that efforts should be made to proactively inquire about bloating.

Development of a Simple, Point-of-Care Device to Test Anorectal Function in Patients with Constipation: Randomized Clinical Trial.

Functional constipation (FC) is one of the most frequently encountered gastrointestinal conditions in practice.1 Practice guidelines universally recommend that patients with typical constipation symptoms and no alarm features be treated empirically with dietary/lifestyle interventions and laxative therapy.2,3 Unfortunately, by the time a patient reaches a gastroenterologist, these treatments frequently have already been tried. Anorectal function testing (anorectal manometry [ARM] and balloon expulsion test [BET]) is the next best step in management guidelines in this all-too-common scenario, because treatment can then be targeted toward pelvic floor dysfunction or colon transit abnormalities. Unfortunately, more than 95% of patients continue to take only over-the-counter laxatives and receive empirical dietary advice, whereas fewer than 2% undergo physiologic evaluation to ascertain the cause of their symptoms.4 Indeed, more than 90% of patients desire more effective treatment options. These observations call into question the wisdom of a management strategy that fails to recognize the intrinsic diversity of the constipation universe and reinforces the misguided "one size fits all" empirical treatment strategy.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Diet in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a commonly diagnosed gastrointestinal disorder that can have a substantial impact on quality of life. Most patients with IBS associate their gastrointestinal symptoms with eating food. Mounting evidence supports dietary modifications, such as the low-fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet, as a primary treatment for IBS symptoms. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to provide best practice advice statements, primarily to clinical gastroenterologists, covering the role of diet in IBS treatment. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. The best practice advice statements were drawn from reviewing existing literature combined with expert opinion to provide practical advice on the role of diet in treating patients with IBS. Because this was not a systematic review, formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations was not performed. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Dietary advice is ideally prescribed to patients with IBS who have insight into their meal-related gastrointestinal symptoms and are motivated to make the necessary changes. To optimize the quality of teaching and clinical response, referral to a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) should be made to patients who are willing to collaborate with a RDN and patients who are not able to implement beneficial dietary changes on their own. If a gastrointestinal RDN is not available, other resources can assist with implementation of diet interventions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Patients with IBS who are poor candidates for restrictive diet interventions include those consuming few culprit foods, those at risk for malnutrition, those who are food insecure, and those with an eating disorder or uncontrolled psychiatric disorder. Routine screening for disordered eating or eating disorders by careful dietary history is critical because they are common and often overlooked in gastrointestinal conditions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Specific diet interventions should be attempted for a predetermined length of time. If there is no clinical response, the diet intervention should be abandoned for another treatment alternative, for example, a different diet, medication, or other form of therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: In preparation for a visit with a RDN, patients should provide dietary information that will assist in developing an individualized nutrition care plan. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Soluble fiber is efficacious in treating global symptoms of IBS. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: The low-FODMAP diet is currently the most evidence-based diet intervention for IBS. Healthy eating advice as described by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Guidelines, among others, also offers benefit to a subset of patients with IBS. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: The low-FODMAP diet consists of the following 3 phases: 1) restriction (lasting no more than 4-6 weeks), 2) reintroduction of FODMAP foods, and 3) personalization based on results from reintroduction. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Although observational studies found that most patients with IBS improve with a gluten-free diet, randomized controlled trials have yielded mixed results. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: There are limited data showing that selected biomarkers can predict response to diet interventions in patients with IBS, but there is insufficient evidence to support their routine use in clinical practice.

Can a Defecation Posture Modifying Device Correct an Abnormal Balloon Expulsion Test in Chronically Constipated Patients?

Evacuation disorders are common among chronically constipated (CC) patients who fail to respond to laxatives and are typically diagnosed by anorectal manometry (ARM) and/or balloon expulsion testing (BET).1,2 Recently, there has been emerging interest in the use of defecation posture-modifying devices (DPMDs) to improve constipation symptoms, presumably by replicating the physiologic benefits of squatting on stool evacuation, such as straightening of the anorectal angle and relaxing the pelvic floor. However, the ability of DPMDs to normalize anorectal function in adult patients with CC has not been studied.

A Randomized Parallel-group Study of Digital Gut-directed Hypnotherapy vs Muscle Relaxation for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gut-directed hypnotherapy (GDH) is effective for treating irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but access limits its widespread use. We report the first randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of a self-administered, digital GDH treatment program with that of digital muscle relaxation (MR) in adults with IBS. METHODS: After a 4-week run-in period, patients were randomized to 12 weeks of treatment with digital GDH (Regulora), or digital MR accessed via a mobile app on a smartphone or tablet. The primary endpoint was abdominal pain response, defined as ≥30% reduction from baseline in average daily abdominal pain intensity in the 4 weeks following treatment. Key secondary outcomes included mean change from baseline in abdominal pain, stool consistency, and stool frequency. RESULTS: Of 378 randomized patients, 362 were treated and included in the efficacy analysis. A similar proportion of the GDH (30.4%) and MR (27.1%) groups met the primary endpoint, with no significant difference between the groups (P = .5352). Significantly more patients treated with GDH than MR were abdominal pain responders during the last 4 weeks of treatment (30.9% vs 21.5%; P = .0232) and over the entire treatment period (29.3% vs 18.8%; P = .0254). Improvements in abdominal pain, stool consistency, and stool frequency were consistent across IBS subtypes. No patients experienced serious adverse events or adverse events leading to study discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a digital GDH program led to an improvement in abdominal pain and stool symptoms in patients with IBS, supporting a role for this intervention as part of integrated care for IBS. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT04133519.

Clinical History Does Not Reliably Predict Clinical Outcomes With Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy to Treat Chronic Constipation.

Chronic constipation affects 10%-20% of the population and impacts quality-of-life similarly to rheumatoid arthritis or congestive heart failure.1 We recently showed in a prospective clinical trial that up-front, community-based pelvic floor physical therapy is effective to treat chronic constipation for patients seeking general gastroenterology care after failing a brief trial of osmotic laxative or soluble fiber supplementation2 and can be guided by anorectal function testing.3,4 In this post hoc analysis, we aimed to evaluate whether factors on clinical history including specific symptoms, work-productivity impairment, health-related quality-of-life impairment, and psychological factors are useful to inform patient selection on the expected likelihood of clinical response without using anorectal function tests.

Vonoprazan Triple and Dual Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Infection in the United States and Europe: Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Novel, effective treatments for Helicobacter pylori infection are needed. This study evaluated the efficacy of vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker, vs standard treatment on H pylori eradication in the United States and Europe. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial, treatment-naïve adults with H pylori infection were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label vonoprazan dual therapy (20 mg vonoprazan twice daily; 1 g amoxicillin 3 times daily), or double-blind triple therapy twice a day (vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg; amoxicillin 1 g; clarithromycin 500 mg) for 14 days. The primary outcome was noninferiority in eradication rates in patients without clarithromycin- and amoxicillin-resistant strains (noninferiority margin = 10%). Secondary outcomes assessed superiority in eradication rates in clarithromycin-resistant infections, and in all patients. RESULTS: A total of 1046 patients were randomized. Primary outcome eradication rates (nonresistant strains): vonoprazan triple therapy 84.7%, dual therapy 78.5%, vs lansoprazole triple therapy 78.8% (both noninferior; difference 5.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.8 to 12.6; P < .001; difference -0.3%; 95% CI, -7.4 to 6.8; P = .007, respectively). Eradication rates in clarithromycin-resistant infections: vonoprazan triple therapy 65.8%, dual therapy 69.6%, vs lansoprazole triple therapy 31.9% (both superior; difference 33.9%; 95% CI, 17.7-48.1; P < .001; difference 37.7%; 95% CI, 20.5-52.6; P < .001, respectively). In all patients, vonoprazan triple and dual therapy were superior to lansoprazole triple therapy (80.8% and 77.2%, respectively, vs 68.5%, difference 12.3%; 95% CI, 5.7-18.8; P < .001; difference 8.7%; 95% CI, 1.9-15.4; P = .013). Overall frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between vonoprazan and lansoprazole regimens (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Both vonoprazan-based regimens were superior to proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy in clarithromycin-resistant strains and in the overall study population. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; NCT04167670.

Rare, Overlooked, or Underappreciated Causes of Recurrent Abdominal Pain: A Primer for Gastroenterologists.

Recurrent abdominal pain is a common reason for repeated visits to outpatient clinics and emergency departments, reflecting a substantial unmet need for timely and accurate diagnosis. A lack of awareness of some of the rarer causes of recurrent abdominal pain may impede diagnosis and delay effective management. This article identifies some of the key rare but diagnosable causes that are frequently missed by gastroenterologists and provides expert recommendations to support recognition, diagnosis, and management with the ultimate aim of improving patient outcomes.

Up-Front Endoscopy Maximizes Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Satisfaction in Uninvestigated Dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Practice guidelines promote a routine noninvasive, non-endoscopic initial approach to investigating dyspepsia without alarm features in young patients, yet many patients undergo prompt upper endoscopy. We aimed to assess tradeoffs among costs, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes to inform discrepancy between guidelines and practice. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model and performed cost-effectiveness/cost-satisfaction analysis over a 1-year time horizon on patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia without alarm features referred to gastroenterology. A RAND/UCLA expert panel informed model design. Four competing diagnostic/management strategies were evaluated: prompt endoscopy, testing for Helicobacter pylori and eradicating if present (test-and-treat), testing for H pylori and performing endoscopy if present (test-and-scope), and empiric acid suppression. Outcomes were derived from systematic reviews of clinical trials. Costs were informed by prospective observational cohort studies and national commercial/federal cost databases. Health gains were represented using quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: From the patient perspective, costs and outcomes were similar for all strategies (maximum out-of-pocket difference of $30 and <0.01 quality-adjusted life years gained/year regardless of strategy). Prompt endoscopy maximized cost-satisfaction and health system reimbursement. Test-and-scope maximized cost-effectiveness from insurer and patient perspectives. Results remained robust on multiple one-way sensitivity analyses on model inputs and across most willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive management strategies appear to result in inferior cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction outcomes compared with strategies promoting up-front endoscopy. Therefore, additional studies are needed to evaluate the drivers of patient satisfaction to facilitate inclusion in value-based healthcare transformation efforts.

Utility of Anorectal Testing to Predict Outcomes With Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in Chronic Constipation: Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We performed a clinical trial that aimed to inform the clinical utility of anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion time (BET) as up-front tests to predict outcomes with community-based pelvic floor physical therapy as the next best step to address chronic constipation after failing an empiric trial of soluble fiber supplementation or osmotic laxatives. METHODS: We enrolled 60 treatment-naïve patients with Rome IV functional constipation failing 2 weeks of soluble fiber supplementation or osmotic laxatives. All patients underwent ARM/BET (London protocol) followed by community-based pelvic floor physical therapy. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 12 weeks. The primary end point was clinical response (Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms instrument). RESULTS: Fifty-three patients completed pelvic rehabilitation and the post-treatment questionnaire. Contemporary frameworks define dyssynergia on balloon expulsion time and dyssynergic patterns (ARM), but these parameters did not inform clinical outcomes (area under the curve [AUC], <0.6). Squeeze pressure (>192.5 mm Hg on at least 1 of 3 attempts; sensitivity, 47.6%; specificity, 83.9%) and limited squeeze duration (inability to sustain 50% of squeeze pressure for >20 seconds; sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 58.1%) were the strongest predictors of clinical outcomes. Combining BET with squeeze duration (BET greater than 6.5 seconds and limited squeeze duration) improved predictive accuracy (AUC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90). BET poorly predicted outcomes as a single test (AUC, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Using ARM to evaluate squeeze profiles, rather than dyssynergia, appears useful to screen patients with chronic constipation for up-front pelvic floor physical therapy based on likelihood of response. BET appears noninformative as a single screening test (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04159350).

An Office-Based, Point-of-Care Test Predicts Treatment Outcomes With Community-Based Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in Patients With Chronic Constipation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Rectal evacuation disorders are common among constipated patients. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of an investigational point-of-care test (rectal expulsion device [RED]) to predict outcomes with community-based pelvic floor physical therapy. METHODS: We enrolled patients meeting Rome IV criteria for functional constipation failing fiber/laxatives for more than 2 weeks. RED was inserted and self-inflated, and then time-to-expel was measured in a left lateral position. All patients underwent empiric community-based pelvic floor physical therapy in routine care with outcomes measured at 12 weeks. The primary end point was global clinical response (Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms score reduction, >0.75 vs baseline). Secondary end points included improvement in health-related quality-of-life (Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score reduction, >1.0) and complete spontaneous bowel movement frequency (Food and Drug Administration complete spontaneous bowel movement responder definition). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients enrolled in a feasibility phase to develop the use-case protocol. Sixty patients enrolled in a blinded validation phase; 52 patients (mean, 46.9 y; 94.2% women) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the left lateral position, RED predicted global clinical response (generalized area under the curve [gAUC], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.76]), health-related quality-of-life response (gAUC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77; P < .001), and complete spontaneous bowel movement response (gAUC, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71; P < .001). As a screening test, a normal RED effectively rules out evacuation disorders (expected clinical response, 8.9%; P = .042). Abnormal RED in the left lateral position (defined as expulsion within 5 seconds or >120 seconds) predicted 48.9% clinical response to physical therapy. A seated maneuver enhanced the likelihood of clinical response (71.1% response with seated RED retained >13 seconds) but likely is unnecessary in most settings. CONCLUSIONS: RED offers an opportunity to disrupt the paradigm by offering a personalized approach to managing chronic constipation in the community (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04159350).