CENTRAL NEUROMODULATORS IN IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME. WHY, HOW AND WHEN.

Irritable bowel syndrome are responsive to treatments using central neuromodulators. Central neuromodulators work by enhancing the synaptic transmission of 5-hydroxytryptamine, noradrenalin and dopamine, achieving a slower regulation or desensitization of their postsynaptic receptors. Central neuromodulators act on receptors along the brain-gut axis, so they are useful in treating psychiatric comorbidities, modifying gut motility, improving central downregulation of visceral signals and enhancing neurogenesis in patients with IBS. Choosing a central neuromodulator for treating IBS should be according to the pharmacological properties and the predominant symptoms. The first-line treatment for pain management in IBS is using tricyclic antidepressants. An alternative for pain management is the serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are useful when symptoms of anxiety and hypervigilance are dominant but are not helpful for treating abdominal pain. The predominant bowel habit is helpful when choosing a neuromodulator to treat IBS; SSRIs help constipation, not pain, but may cause diarrhea; TCAs help diarrhea but may cause constipation. A clinical response may occur in 6-8 weeks, but long-term treatment (usually 6-12 months) is required after the initial response to prevent relapse. Augmentation therapy may be beneficial when the therapeutic effect of the first agent is incomplete or associated with side effects. It is recommended to reduce the dose of the first agent and add a second complementary treatment. This may include an atypical antipsychotic or brain-gut behavioral treatment. When tapering central neuromodulators, the dose should be reduced slowly over 4 weeks but may take longer when discontinuation effects occur.

Worldwide population prevalence and impact of sub-diagnostic gastrointestinal symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) found that 40.3% of adults in 26 internet-surveyed countries met Rome IV criteria for disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). However, additional people not meeting DGBI criteria may also be burdened by frequent gastrointestinal symptoms. AIMS: To explore the prevalence and demographic distribution of sub-diagnostic gastrointestinal symptoms, and the hypothesised associated effects on quality of life (QoL), life functioning and healthcare needs. METHODS: We analysed data from the RFGES survey, which included the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and QoL, psychological, work productivity and healthcare questions. RESULTS: Of the 50,033 people without a history of organic gastrointestinal disorders, 25.3% classified in the sub-diagnostic group (no DGBI but one or more frequent gastrointestinal symptoms), 41.4% had DGBI and 33.4% had no frequent gastrointestinal symptoms (non-GI group). Sub-diagnostic prevalence in different world regions ranged from 22.2% (North America) to 30.5% (Middle East), was slightly higher among males than females and decreased with age. The sub-diagnostic group was intermediate between the non-GI and DGBI groups, and significantly different from both of them on QoL, anxiety, depression, somatisation, healthcare utilisation and life and work impairment. CONCLUSIONS: One in four adults without organic gastrointestinal disorders or DGBI report frequent gastrointestinal symptoms. This sub-diagnostic group has reduced QoL, greater psychological and non-GI bodily symptoms, impaired work productivity and life activities and greater healthcare use compared to non-GI individuals. This suggests that many in this sub-diagnostic group might benefit from healthcare services or symptom self-management advice.

Global Prevalence of Psychological Distress and Comorbidity With Disorders of Gut-Brain Interactions.

INTRODUCTION: This study focused on defining the global prevalence of clinically relevant levels of psychological distress and somatic symptoms and the prevalence of coexistence between these symptoms and disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). We also analyzed how clinically relevant psychological distress and somatic symptoms and coexistent DGBI are associated with health-related outcomes. METHODS: We included a representative sample of 54,127 adult participants (49.1% women; mean age of 44.3 years) from 26 countries worldwide. Participants completed an Internet survey (the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study) with validated self-report questionnaires. RESULTS: Clinically relevant psychological distress and/or somatic symptom severity was reported by 37.5% of the sample. These participants had 4.45 times higher odds to have at least one DGBI than individuals without psychological distress and/or somatic symptoms. Compared with participants with psychological distress and/or somatic symptoms with vs without DGBI, participants with a DGBI reported increased healthcare and medication utilization (with OR from 1.6 to 2.8). Coexistent DGBI in participants with psychological distress and/or somatic symptoms was the variable most strongly associated with reduced mental (ß = -0.77; confidence interval [-0.86 to -0.68]) and physical (ß = -1.17; confidence interval [-1.24 to -1.10]) quality of life. DISCUSSION: This global study shows that psychological distress, somatic symptoms, and DGBI are very common and frequently overlap. The coexistence between psychological distress/somatic symptoms and DGBI seems to be especially detrimental to quality of life and healthcare utilization. Individuals with psychological distress/somatic symptoms and DGBI coexistence seem to be a group vulnerable to psychosocial problems that should be studied further and would likely benefit from psychological/psychiatric interventions.

Perceptions, Definitions, and Therapeutic Interventions for Occasional Constipation: A Rome Working Group Consensus Document.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Functional constipation is the most common of the disorders of gut-brain interaction, affecting approximately 12% of the world population. Although classically considered a chronic condition, many individuals experience shorter yet repetitive bouts of constipation representing a different clinical entity. There has been increased interest in this latter disorder, which has recently been classified as occasional constipation. This Rome Foundation working group document reflects the consensus of an international team of specialists who summarized currently available research to provide a working definition of and treatment algorithm for occasional constipation. The recommendations herein are based on current evidence, accounting for gaps in the literature as well as international variance in definitions and health seeking behaviors for constipation. METHODS: The committee members reviewed the scientific literature, focusing specifically on occasional constipation, with the understanding that as a new entity, a paucity of data would be available. We used Rome IV research and clinical definitions to establish the framework for our definition of occasional constipation. Where possible, treatment recommendations were determined on the basis of the earliest extractable data from functional constipation studies, focusing on positive results within the first 2 weeks of treatment. We used the Delphi method to create consensus with 100% agreement between the authors. RESULTS: An evidence-based review of the literature resulted in the definition of occasional constipation as follows: "individuals who experience the presence of at least 1 functional constipation symptom, in the absence of alarm signs or symptoms, occurring at irregular and infrequent intervals, which is bothersome enough to induce a patient to seek medical management." Medical management whether seeking medical care or self-treatment was left to the individual's discretion, and we did not include time anchors because these thresholds require further investigation. Polyethylene glycol and stimulant laxatives are recommended as first-line interventions, whereas magnesium-containing compounds are suggested in individuals failing to respond to these therapies. There are insufficient data to make recommendations for using fiber or stool softeners. Prescription laxatives should be reserved for individuals with chronic constipation. CONCLUSIONS: Occasional constipation is a unique clinical entity characterized by infrequent but recurrent symptoms. Data are limited because consensus definitions have been lacking. Establishing a standardized definition and therapeutic recommendations provides a framework for future studies focusing on epidemiologic and symptoms-based outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm and refine these recommendations.

Prolonged Gastrointestinal Manifestations After Recovery From COVID-19.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Acute enteric infections are well known to result in long-term gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Although COVID-19 is principally a respiratory illness, it demonstrates significant GI tropism, possibly predisposing to prolonged gut manifestations. We aimed to examine the long-term GI impact of hospitalization with COVID-19. METHODS: Nested within a large-scale observational cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across North America, we performed a follow-up survey of 530 survivors 12-18 months later to assess for persistent GI symptoms and their severity, and for the development of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs). Eligible patients were identified at the study site level and surveyed electronically. The survey instrument included the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire for DGBI, a rating scale of 24 COVID-related symptoms, the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale, and the Impact of Events-Revised trauma symptom questionnaire (a measure of posttraumatic stress associated with the illness experience). A regression analysis was performed to explore the factors associated with GI symptom severity at follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 530 invited patients, 116 responded (52.6% females; mean age, 55.2 years), and 73 of those (60.3%) met criteria for 1 or more Rome IV DGBI at follow-up, higher than the prevalence in the US general population (P < .0001). Among patients who experienced COVID-related GI symptoms during the index hospitalization (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea), 42.1% retained at least 1 of these symptoms at follow-up; in comparison, 89.8% of respondents retained any (GI or non-GI) COVID-related symptom. The number of moderate or severe GI symptoms experienced during the initial COVID-19 illness by self-report correlated with the development of DGBI and severity of GI symptoms at follow-up. Posttraumatic stress disorder (Impact of Events-Revised score ≥33) related to the COVID-19 illness experience was identified in 41.4% of respondents and those individuals had higher DGBI prevalence and GI symptom severity. Regression analysis revealed that higher psychological trauma score (Impact of Events-Revised) was the strongest predictor of GI symptom severity at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this follow-up survey of patients 12-18 months after hospitalization with COVID-19, there was a high prevalence of DGBIs and persistent GI symptoms. Prolonged GI manifestations were associated with the severity of GI symptoms during hospitalization and with the degree of psychological trauma related to the illness experience.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Evaluation and Management of Belching, Abdominal Bloating, and Distention: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: Belching, bloating, and abdominal distention are all highly prevalent gastrointestinal symptoms and account for some of the most common reasons for patient visits to outpatient gastroenterology practices. These symptoms are often debilitating, affecting patients' quality of life, and contributing to work absenteeism. Belching and bloating differ in their pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management, and there is limited evidence available for their various treatments. Therefore, the purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update is to provide best practice advice based on both controlled trials and observational data for clinicians covering clinical features, diagnostics, and management considerations that include dietary, gut-directed behavioral, and drug therapies. METHODS: This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates 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 Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These best practice advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature based on clinical trials, the more robust observational studies, and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these best practice advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinical history and physical examination findings and impedance pH monitoring can help to differentiate between gastric and supragastric belching. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Treatment options for supragastric belching may include brain-gut behavioral therapies, either separately or in combination, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, speech therapy, and central neuromodulators. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Rome IV criteria should be used to diagnose primary abdominal bloating and distention. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Carbohydrate enzyme deficiencies may be ruled out with dietary restriction and/or breath testing. In a small subset of at-risk patients, small bowel aspiration and glucose- or lactulose-based hydrogen breath testing may be used to evaluate for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Serologic testing may rule out celiac disease in patients with bloating and, if serologies are positive, a small bowel biopsy should be done to confirm the diagnosis. A gastroenterology dietitian should be part of the multidisciplinary approach to care for patients with celiac disease and nonceliac gluten sensitivity. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Abdominal imaging and upper endoscopy should be ordered in patients with alarm features, recent worsening symptoms, or an abnormal physical examination only. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Gastric emptying studies should not be ordered routinely for bloating and distention, but may be considered if nausea and vomiting are present. Whole gut motility and radiopaque transit studies should not be ordered unless other additional and treatment-refractory lower gastrointestinal symptoms exist to warrant testing for neuromyopathic disorders. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: In patients with abdominal bloating and distention thought to be related to constipation or difficult evacuation, anorectal physiology testing is suggested to rule out a pelvic floor disorder. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: When dietary modifications are needed (eg, low-fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols diet), a gastroenterology dietitian should preferably monitor treatment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Probiotics should not be used to treat abdominal bloating and distention. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Biofeedback therapy may be effective for bloating and distention when a pelvic floor disorder is identified. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Central neuromodulators (eg, antidepressants) are used to treat bloating and abdominal distention by reducing visceral hypersensitivity, raising sensation threshold, and improving psychological comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Medications used to treat constipation should be considered for treating bloating if constipation symptoms are present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Psychological therapies, such as hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other brain-gut behavior therapies may be used to treat patients with bloating and distention. BEST PRACTICE 15: Diaphragmatic breathing and central neuromodulators are used to treat abdominophrenic dyssynergia.

Face-to-face interviews versus Internet surveys: Comparison of two data collection methods in the Rome foundation global epidemiology study: Implications for population-based research.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) assessed the prevalence, burden, and associated factors of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) in 33 countries around the world. Achieving worldwide sampling necessitated use of two different surveying methods: In-person household interviews (9 countries) and Internet surveys (26 countries). Two countries, China and Turkey, were surveyed with both methods. This paper examines the differences in the survey results with the two methods, as well as likely reasons for those differences. METHODS: The two RFGES survey methods are described in detail, and differences in DGBI findings summarized for household versus Internet surveys globally, and in more detail for China and Turkey. Logistic regression analysis was used to elucidate factors contributing to these differences. RESULTS: Overall, DGBI were only half as prevalent when assessed with household vs Internet surveys. Similar patterns of methodology-related DGBI differences were seen within both China and Turkey, but prevalence differences between the survey methods were dramatically larger in Turkey. No clear reasons for outcome differences by survey method were identified, although greater relative reduction in bowel and anorectal versus upper gastrointestinal disorders when household versus Internet surveying was used suggests an inhibiting influence of social sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings strongly indicate that besides affecting data quality, manpower needs and data collection time and costs, the choice of survey method is a substantial determinant of symptom reporting and DGBI prevalence outcomes. This has important implications for future DGBI research and epidemiological research more broadly.

Factor Analysis of the Rome IV Criteria for Major Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) Globally and Across Geographical, Sex, and Age Groups.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Rome criteria are widely accepted for diagnosing disorders of gut-brain interaction, but their global applicability has been debated. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of the Rome IV criteria by factor analysis globally, across geographical regions, by sex, and by age groups. METHODS: Data were collected in 26 countries using the Rome IV questionnaire. Forty-nine ordinal variables were used in exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify clusters of inter-correlated variables (factors) within the data set. Confirmatory factor analysis with predefined factors of the disorders of gut-brain interaction was compared with the factors in the EFA. Analyses were performed globally, for each geographical region (North and Latin America, Western and Eastern Europe, Middle East, Asia), sex, and age groups (18-34, 35-49, 50-64, ≥65). RESULTS: A total of 54,127 people were included. The EFA identified 10 factors accounting for 57% of the variance: irritable bowel syndrome, constipation, diarrhea, upper gastrointestinal symptoms, globus, regurgitation/retching, chest pain, nausea/vomiting, and 2 right upper quadrant pain factors. Most factors had close correspondence to a Rome IV criteria diagnosis, but notably, functional dysphagia and heartburn symptoms were often included in the same factor and/or in upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Most factors were consistent across geographical regions, sex, and age groups, and compatible to the global results. All prespecified factors in the confirmatory analysis had a loading ≥0.4, indicating validity of the Rome IV criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, functional constipation, globus, and biliary pain are globally valid and represent universal diagnostic entities that are similar across sex and age groups.

Are bowel symptoms and psychosocial features different in irritable bowel syndrome patients with abdominal discomfort compared to abdominal pain?

BACKGROUND: The Rome IV criteria eliminated abdominal discomfort for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), which was previously included in Rome III. There are questions as to whether IBS patients with abdominal discomfort (seen in Rome III but not Rome IV) are different from those with abdominal pain (Rome IV). AIM: To compare bowel symptoms and psychosocial features in IBS patients diagnosed with Rome III criteria with abdominal discomfort, abdominal pain, and pain & discomfort. METHODS: We studied IBS patients meeting Rome III criteria. We administered the IBS symptom questionnaire, psychological status, and IBS quality of life. Patients were classified according to the predominant abdominal symptom associated with defecation into an only pain group, only discomfort group, and pain & discomfort group. We compared bowel symptoms, extraintestinal symptoms, IBS quality of life, psychological status and healthcare-seeking behaviors, and efficacy among the three groups. Finally, we tested risk factors for symptom reporting in IBS patients. RESULTS: Of the 367 Rome III IBS patients enrolled, 33.8% (124 cases) failed to meet Rome IV criteria for an IBS diagnosis. There were no meaningful differences between the pain group (n = 233) and the discomfort group (n = 83) for the following: (1) Frequency of defecatory abdominal pain or discomfort; (2) Bowel habits; (3) Coexisting extragastrointestinal pain; (4) Comorbid anxiety and depression; and (5) IBS quality of life scores except more patients in the discomfort group reported mild symptom than the pain group (22.9% vs 9.0%). There is a significant tendency for patients to report their defecatory and non-defecatory abdominal symptom as pain alone, or discomfort alone, or pain & discomfort (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IBS patients with abdominal discomfort have similar bowel symptoms and psychosocial features to those with abdominal pain. IBS symptoms manifesting abdominal pain or discomfort may primarily be due to different sensation and reporting experience.

The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology study: Research opportunities national and worldwide.

The Rome Foundation embarked on an ambitious multi-year, multinational population-based study to evaluate the prevalence of Rome IV-defined DGBI and their biopsychosocial impact on a worldwide scale. The consistency of the study findings attests to the scientific rigor of this effort, as evident in the publications that resulted from this international study. Dr. Sperber and colleagues report a subanalysis on the Rome IV Global Epidemiology internet survey of the 2012 adults in Israel. These data determined the national prevalence of Rome IV-defined DGBIs, and their associated healthcare utilization and sociodemographic and psychosocial variables. Importantly, they also permitted seamless comparison of the data in the rest of the world. The Israeli study highlights some of the strengths of the Global Epidemiology Study: the 2 respondents had a geographical spread representative of the country. The questionnaire in Israel was available to the participants online in four different languages used by the population in Israel: The database of the study is now available through the Rome Foundation Research Institute for use by academic and industry researchers. This unique gift from the Rome Foundation to the scientific community no doubt will further enhance our understanding of disorders of gut-brain interaction.

Greater Overlap of Rome IV Disorders of Gut-Brain Interactions Leads to Increased Disease Severity and Poorer Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia, and functional constipation are among the prevalent gastrointestinal (GI) disorders classified as disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), which can adversely affect the lives of sufferers. This study aimed to assess the degree and consequences of overlapping DGBI in a large population-based global scale. METHODS: Internet survey data from 54,127 adults (49.1% women) in 26 countries were analyzed by 4 GI anatomic regions (esophageal, gastroduodenal, bowel, and anorectal). The number of DGBI-affected GI regions was assessed, including associations with sex, age, disease severity, quality of life, psychosocial variables, and health care utilization. RESULTS: A total of 40.3% of surveyed individuals met Rome IV criteria for a DGBI. The percentages with 1-4 DGBI-affected GI regions were 68.3%, 22.3%, 7.1%, and 2.3%, respectively. The IBS symptom severity score increased significantly from 1 (207.6) to 4 (291.6) regions, as did non-GI symptom reporting (somatization), anxiety and depression, concerns and embarrassment about bowel function, doctor visits, medications, and abdominal surgeries (all P < .0001). Quality of life decreased with increasing number of DGBI regions (P < .0001). In a logistic mixed model, non-GI symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.10), being very vs not concerned (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.27-2.90), being very vs not embarrassed about bowel function (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.33), and mean number of doctor visits (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.115-1.32) were most strongly associated with number of DGBI regions. CONCLUSIONS: DGBI in multiple anatomic GI regions is associated with increased psychological comorbidity, health care utilization, and IBS severity. Physician awareness of overlap could improve quality of care, prevent unnecessary interventions, and yield more positive health outcomes.

What elements in the physician-patient relationship (PPR) contribute to patient satisfaction: Development of a short form PPRS-Patient Version (PPRS-Patient SF) Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Past research suggests that patient-provider relationships play a crucial role in patient satisfaction with their medical care. However, the essential relationship elements responsible for this effect have not been elucidated and were examined in this study. METHODS: Patients in six gastroenterology clinics at a major medical center completed an anonymous, secure Internet survey about their medical care after a clinic visit. The survey included the validated Satisfaction With Care Scale-37 (SAT-37) and Patient-Physician Relationship Scale (PPRS). Correlations between those scales were calculated, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by regression analysis was used to create a PPRS Short Form (PPRS-SF) specifically to account for satisfaction with care. KEY RESULTS: 173 patients (114 females and 59 males; mean age 49.2 years) completed the survey. A range of specific patient-doctor relationship aspects on the PPRS substantially influenced the patients' satisfaction scores. These are grouped into five EFA-derived patient perception factors about their physicians: Competence, Connection, Professionalism, Considerateness, and Willingness/ability to make needed outside referrals. A brief 12-item PPRS-SF questionnaire was constructed that explained 63% of the variance in patients' satisfaction with their care. In contrast, the patients' clinical and demographic characteristics had little explanatory value regarding their satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Our findings strongly support the notion that the patient-physician relationship's quality is the principal driver of gastroenterology patients' satisfaction with their care. The new PPRS-SF is a convenient tool for clinicians and healthcare systems to assess the essential relationship factors that ensure satisfied patients.

A Rome Working Team Report on Brain-Gut Behavior Therapies for Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This Rome Foundation Working Team Report reflects the consensus of an international interdisciplinary team of experts regarding the use of behavioral interventions, specifically brain-gut behavior therapies (BGBTs), in patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs). METHODS: The committee members reviewed the extant scientific literature and, when possible, addressed gaps in this literature through the lens of their clinical and scientific expertise. The Delphi method was used to create consensus on the goals, structure, and framework before writing the report. The report is broken into 5 parts: 1) definition and evidence for BGBT, 2) the gut-brain axis as the mechanistic basis for BGBT, 3) targets of BGBTs, 4) common and unique therapeutic techniques seen in BGBT, and 5) who and how to refer for BGBT. RESULTS: We chose to not only review for the reader the 5 existing classes of BGBT and their evidence, but to connect DGBI-specific behavioral targets and techniques as they relate directly, or in some cases indirectly, to the gut-brain axis. In doing so, we expect to increase gastrointestinal providers' confidence in identifying and referring appropriate candidates for BGBT and to support clinical decision making for mental health professionals providing BGBT. CONCLUSIONS: Both gastrointestinal medical providers and behavioral health providers have an opportunity to optimize care for DGBIs through a collaborative integrated approach that begins with an effective patient-provider relationship, thoughtful communication about the brain-gut axis and, when appropriate, a well communicated referral to BGBT.

Neuromodulators in the Brain-Gut Axis: their Role in the Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a clinically well-defined chronic condition that is now understood as a disorder of gut-brain regulation, as established in the work of the Rome IV committees coordinated by Drossman, 2016. People with IBS often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life. Drug therapy focuses on reducing main symptoms and disability and improving health-related quality of life. Central neuromodulators reduce IBS symptoms by targeting dysregulated pain and motility related to gut-brain dysregulation. It can also treat associated mental health symptoms. Based on their multiple effects on central and peripheral mechanisms, neuromodulators have been used to treat IBS patients. This review presents the rationale supporting medication treatments for specific IBS symptoms, discusses evidence-based management of IBS with central neuromodulators, and reviews the progress in the research for new neuromodulators.

Psychopharmacologic Therapies for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

Psychopharmacologic therapies are beneficial in reducing symptoms when treating irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and other disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). Noradrenaline, serotonin, and dopamine are neurotransmitters of key importance in psychopharmacology and pain-reduction mechanisms. The first-line (tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and second-line (atypical antipsychotics, delta-ligand agents, low-dose naltrexone) neuromodulator treatment options are recommended when IBS-associated abdominal pain is of moderate or severe intensity and is persistent. To understand the implementation strategy, the multidimensional clinical profile as a template is used for presenting 3 case scenarios involving painful IBS and DGBI of varying complexity.

A Review of the Evidence and Recommendations on Communication Skills and the Patient-Provider Relationship: A Rome Foundation Working Team Report.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Over several decades, changes in health care have negatively impacted meaningful communication between the patient and provider and adversely affected their relationship. Under increasing time pressure, physicians rely more on technology than face-to-face time gathering data to make clinical decisions. As a result, they find it more challenging to understand the illness context and fully address patient needs. Patients experience dissatisfaction and a diminution of their role in the care process. For patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction, stigma leads to greater care dissatisfaction, as there is no apparent structural basis to legitimize the symptoms. Recent evidence suggests that practical communication skills can improve the patient-provider relationship (PPR) and clinical outcomes, but these data are limited. METHODS: The Rome Foundation convened a multidisciplinary working team to review the scientific evidence with the following aims: a) to study the effect of communication skills on patient satisfaction and outcomes by performing an evidence-based review; b) to characterize the influence of sociocultural factors, health care system constraints, patient perspective, and telehealth on the PPR; c) to review the measurement and impact of communication skills training on these outcomes; and d) to make recommendations to improve communication skills training and the PPR. RESULTS: Evidence supports the fact that interventions targeting patient-provider interactions improve population health, patient and provider experience, and costs. Communication skills training leads to improved patient satisfaction and outcomes. The following are relevant factors to consider in establishing an effective PPR: addressing health care system constraints; incorporating sociocultural factors and the role of gender, age, and chronic illness; and considering the changing role of telehealth on the PPR. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that effective communication skills can improve the PPR and health outcomes. This is an achievable goal through training and system change. More research is needed to confirm these findings.