Toward a core outcome set for faecal incontinence-A systematic review of outcomes reported in the literature.

AIM: Faecal incontinence (FI) is a prevalent issue which can have a detrimental impact on the patient's quality of life. Current international guidelines lack strong treatment recommendations due to few studies in the field, in combination with the heterogeneity in outcome reporting. To address this, a core outcome set (COS) is proposed to standardize outcome reporting in FI studies, facilitating meta-analyses and enhancing therapeutic recommendations. Through several steps outlined by COMET 'what' to measure will be determined prior to determining 'how' to measure these outcomes. This systematic review aims to identify 'what' outcomes have been used in FI intervention studies so far in adult patients as a starting phase for the development of a future COS for FI. METHOD: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched to identify all outcomes reported in comparative effectiveness trials assessing one or more treatment option in adult patients suffering from FI. The outcomes were categorized according to the Core Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy to standardize outcome terminology, assess completeness, and inform subsequent steps in COS development. RESULTS: A total of 109 studies were included, which revealed 51 unique outcomes classified into 38 domains within four core areas. On average four outcomes were reported per study (range 1-11). The most commonly reported outcomes were "severity of FI" (83%), "quality of life" (64%), "number of FI episodes" (40%), "anorectal motor function" (39%), and "frequency of bowel movements" (16%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review offers an overview of outcomes reported in FI studies, highlighting the heterogeneity between studies. This heterogeneity emphasizes the need for standardizing outcome reporting which can be established through the creation of a COS.

Gastric Carcinogenesis and Potential Role of the Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) Receptor: An Observational Histopathological Study.

The potential role of the transient receptor potential Vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) non-selective cation channel in gastric carcinogenesis remains unclear. The main objective of this study was to evaluate TRPV1 expression in gastric cancer (GC) and precursor lesions compared with controls. Patient inclusion was based on a retrospective review of pathology records. Patients were subdivided into five groups: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori)-associated gastritis with gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) (n = 12), chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) with GIM (n = 13), H. pylori-associated gastritis without GIM (n = 19), GC (n = 6) and controls (n = 5). TRPV1 expression was determined with immunohistochemistry and was significantly higher in patients with H. pylori-associated gastritis compared with controls (p = 0.002). TRPV1 expression was even higher in the presence of GIM compared with patients without GIM and controls (p < 0.001). There was a complete loss of TRPV1 expression in patients with GC. TRPV1 expression seems to contribute to gastric-mucosal inflammation and precursors of GC, which significantly increases in cancer precursor lesions but is completely lost in GC. These findings suggest TRPV1 expression to be a potential marker for precancerous conditions and a target for individualized treatment. Longitudinal studies are necessary to further address the role of TRPV1 in gastric carcinogenesis.

A gluten-free diet for endometriosis patients lacks evidence to recommend it.

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent chronic disease characterized by the presence of endometriumlike tissue outside the uterus and is often associated with symptoms, such as dysmenorrhea, dysuria, dyschezia, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility. Moreover, women diagnosed with endometriosis can report gastrointestinal symptoms, including bloating, constipation or diarrhea, and abdominal cramping, which can be associated with irritable bowel syndrome and can result in the misdiagnosis of endometriosis as irritable bowel syndrome at first. Treatment usually involves hormonal therapy, pain management, surgery, and/or assisted reproductive techniques in case of infertility. Nonetheless, these treatment methods can be insufficient for alleviating symptoms or can have unacceptable side effects, leading to noncompliance. Therefore, women often apply self-management strategies, including dietary interventions. One of the diets frequently suggested as a tool to manage endometriosis-related symptoms on social media and patient forums is a gluten-free diet. Although a gluten-free diet has been proven effective in managing nonceliac wheat sensitivity or celiac disease, its effectiveness in endometriosis remains uncertain. The Nurses' Health Study II found it unlikely that gluten intake was a strong factor in endometriosis etiology and symptomatology. To the best of our knowledge, the most frequently cited and sole published intervention study on the efficacy of a gluten-free diet for endometriosis has several important limiting factors, including the absence of a control group. In addition, gluten consumption is highly susceptible to a placebo effect and a nocebo effect, where women might experience symptom relief after eliminating gluten and return of symptoms after they consume gluten again, solely because they believe that gluten is bad for them. Despite the inverse association between body mass index and endometriosis and between a gluten-free diet and increased body mass index, this is an association, and no causality was proven. In addition, other factors should be taken into consideration. Of note, a gluten-free diet is expensive, has limited availability, and has a significant effect on quality of life. Moreover, without proper dietary guidance, it may adversely affect the gastrointestinal microbiome. Therefore, scientifically substantiated advice regarding the use of a gluten-free diet for endometriosis-related symptoms is currently not available, and a gluten-free diet should be discouraged unless there is an additional diagnosis of nonceliac wheat sensitivity or celiac disease.

Review article: A practical approach to persistent gastrointestinal symptoms in inflammatory bowel disease in remission.

BACKGROUND: Persistent gastrointestinal symptoms are prevalent in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), even when endoscopic remission is reached. These symptoms can have profound negative effects on the quality of life of affected patients and can be difficult to treat. They may be caused by IBD-related complications or comorbid disorders, but they can also be explained by irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)-like symptoms. AIMS: To provide a practical step-by-step guide to diagnose and treat persistent gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with IBD in remission via a personalised approach. METHODS: We scrutinised relevant literature on causes, diagnostics and treatment of persistent gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal pain or discomfort, bloating, abdominal distension, diarrhoea, constipation and faecal incontinence) in patients with IBD in remission. RESULTS: A graphical practical guide for several steps in diagnosing, identifying potential triggers and adequate treatment of persistent gastrointestinal symptoms in IBD in remission is provided based on supporting literature. The first part of this review focuses on the diagnostic and treatment approaches for potential IBD-related complications and comorbidities. The second part describes the approach to IBS-like symptoms in IBD in remission. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent gastrointestinal symptoms in IBD in remission can be traced back to potential pathophysiological mechanisms in individual patients and can be treated adequately. For both IBD-related complications and comorbidities and IBS-like symptoms in IBD in remission, pharmacological, dietary, lifestyle or psychological treatments can be effective. A systematic and personalised approach is required to reduce the burden for patients, healthcare systems, and society.

Two randomized crossover multicenter studies investigating gastrointestinal symptoms after bread consumption in individuals with noncoeliac wheat sensitivity: do wheat species and fermentation type matter?

BACKGROUND: Many individuals reduce their bread intake because they believe wheat causes their gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Different wheat species and processing methods may affect these responses. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effects of 6 different bread types (prepared from 3 wheat species and 2 fermentation conditions) on GI symptoms in individuals with self-reported noncoeliac wheat sensitivity (NCWS). METHODS: Two parallel, randomized, double-blind, crossover, multicenter studies were conducted. NCWS individuals, in whom coeliac disease and wheat allergy were ruled out, received 5 slices of yeast fermented (YF) (study A, n = 20) or sourdough fermented (SF) (study B, n = 20) bread made of bread wheat, spelt, or emmer in a randomized order on 3 separate test days. Each test day was preceded by a run-in period of 3 d of a symptom-free diet and separated by a wash-out period of ≥7 d. GI symptoms were evaluated by change in symptom score (test day minus average of the 3-d run-in period) on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (ΔVAS), comparing medians using the Friedman test. Responders were defined as an increase in ΔVAS of ≥15 mm for overall GI symptoms, abdominal discomfort, abdominal pain, bloating, and/or flatulence. RESULTS: GI symptoms did not differ significantly between breads of different grains [YF bread wheat median ΔVAS 10.4 mm (IQR 0.0-17.8 mm), spelt 4.9 mm (-7.6 to 9.4 mm), emmer 11.0 mm (0.0-21.3 mm), P = 0.267; SF bread wheat 10.5 mm (-3.1 to 31.5 mm), spelt 11.3 mm (0.0-15.3 mm), emmer 4.0 mm (-2.9 to 9.3 mm), P = 0.144]. The number of responders was also comparable for both YF (6 to wheat, 5 to spelt, and 7 to emmer, P = 0.761) and SF breads (9 to wheat, 7 to spelt, and 8 to emmer, P = 0.761). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of NCWS individuals experienced some GI symptoms for ≥1 of the breads, but on a group level, no differences were found between different grains for either YF or SF breads. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04084470 (https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04084470).