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.

Work productivity and activity impairment in disorders of gut-brain interaction: Data from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study.

BACKGROUND: Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) are highly prevalent worldwide, but their effect on work productivity has not gained much attention. AIMS AND METHODS: We aimed to compare work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) in persons with and without DGBI in a large population-based cohort and identify factors independently associated with WPAI in subjects with DGBI. Data were collected from Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden via Internet surveys as part of the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study. Apart from the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire, questionnaires evaluating WPAI related to general health (WPAI:GH), psychological distress (PHQ-4), somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15) and other factors were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 16,820 subjects, 7111 met the criteria for DGBI according to the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire. Subjects with DGBI were younger (median (interquartile range) age 43 (31-58) vs. 47 (33-62)) and more often female (59.0% vs. 43.7%) compared to subjects without DGBI. Subjects with DGBI had higher absenteeism, presenteeism (poor work productivity due to illness), overall work impairment and activity impairment (p < 0.001) compared with subjects without. For subjects with DGBI affecting more than one anatomical region, WPAI was incrementally higher for each additional region. There were significant differences in WPAI for subjects with DGBI in different countries. Subjects from Sweden had the highest overall work impairment and from Poland the lowest. Using multiple linear regression, male sex, fatigue, psychological distress, somatic symptom severity and number of anatomical regions were independently associated with overall work impairment (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: In the general population, people with DGBI have substantial WPAI compared with those without DGBI. The reasons for these findings should be explored further, but having multiple DGBI, psychological distress, fatigue and somatic symptom severity seem to contribute to this impairment associated with DGBI.

Maintaining work life under threat of symptoms: a grounded theory study of work life experiences in persons with Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent functional gastrointestinal disorder. Earlier studies have shown that IBS can limit the ability to perform at work and lead to absenteeism. However, few studies focus on work life experiences based on patients' narratives. The purpose of this study was to construct a theory for how persons with IBS maintain their work life. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed using constructivist grounded theory. Semi-structured interviews with 15 women and 8 men with IBS (26-64 years of age) were conducted. Fourteen participants worked full-time, six worked part-time and three were on sick leave. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded line-by-line, incident-by-incident and thereafter focused coding was done. From the data and codes, categories were generated. Finally, a core category was constructed explaining the process of maintaining work life when living with IBS. RESULTS: Balancing work life while being under threat of symptoms constituted of four categories, being prepared, restricting impact, reconciling and adjusting. Persons with IBS restricted the impact of IBS on work by using strategies and upholding daily routines and strived to being prepared by exerting control over work life. These ongoing processes served to limit the influence of IBS on work by symptoms being less intense, perceived as less frequent, or not as bothersome. Reconciling IBS with work life was understood as a successful outcome from being prepared and restricting impact but was also influenced by the individual's outlook on life. Adjusting to other people at work interfered with the strategies of being prepared, restricting impact, and reconciling, leaving persons with IBS more susceptible to symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This study deepens the understanding of the work situation for persons with IBS. Health care professionals can use the results of this study in the dialogue with the patient discussing work ability and sick leave. The results imply that although balancing work life under threat of symptoms can be a struggle, there are strategies that persons with IBS and employers together can initiate and use to reduce impact on work on several different levels.

Work Productivity and Activity Impairment in Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS): A Multifaceted Problem.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are more likely to be both absent from and impaired at work compared to non-IBS patients. We investigated the impact of IBS on work productivity and activity impairment and the relationship to disease specific and general health measures. METHOD: In total, 525 patients with IBS completed questionnaires assessing work productivity and activity impairment, IBS symptom severity, IBS-related quality of life and GI-specific anxiety. In addition, 155 of the patients completed questionnaires assessing severity of somatic symptoms, depression, anxiety and fatigue. Uni- and bivariate analyses were performed, as well as linear regression to determine factors independently associated with the work productivity and activity impairment measures. RESULTS: Of employed patients, 24.3% reported absenteeism and 86.8% reported presenteeism because of their IBS. With increasing severity of IBS symptoms and GI-specific anxiety, higher degrees of work impairment were seen. Work productivity impairment in IBS was also associated with low quality of life. GI-specific anxiety was independently associated with absenteeism (R2 = 0.23; p < 0.05), IBS-symptom severity and general fatigue with presenteeism (R2 = 0.40; p < 0.05), IBS-symptom severity, general fatigue and GI-specific anxiety with overall work loss (R2 = 0.50; p < 0.05), and IBS symptom severity and somatic symptoms with activity impairment (R2 = 0.38; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Work impairment is a substantial problem in patients with IBS. A combination of IBS and somatic symptom severity, fatigue and psychological factors influence patients' ability to be present, active and productive at work. Based on this, a multidimensional treatment approach for patients with IBS seems logical.