Assessing Diagnostic Performance of Modifications to the Rome IV Criteria for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

The gold standard symptom-based criteria for diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are the Rome IV criteria.1 These are more restrictive than their predecessor, Rome III, because the cardinal feature required to meet criteria for IBS was changed to presence of abdominal pain alone, rather than abdominal pain or discomfort.2 This change was made because discomfort was believed to be an ambiguous term, with no equivalent in some languages. In addition, symptom frequency required for the presence of abdominal pain was increased to 1 day per week from 2 to 3 days per month. This has led to reduced sensitivity for detecting IBS and a 50% decrease in the prevalence of the disorder in the community.3,4 In a cross-sectional survey applying both Rome IV and III criteria to people living with IBS, 89% of those with Rome III-defined IBS not meeting Rome IV criteria did not meet Rome IV criteria because of this change in pain frequency.5 Previous iterations of the Rome criteria have performed only modestly in predicting a diagnosis of IBS.6-8 However, in a validation study, the Rome IV criteria outperformed Rome III,9 largely because their more restrictive nature made them more specific than Rome III. We assessed whether modifications to the Rome IV criteria led to a better trade-off between sensitivity and specificity.

Chronic Visceral Pain: New Peripheral Mechanistic Insights and Resulting Treatments.

Chronic visceral pain is one of the most common reasons for patients with gastrointestinal disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease or disorders of brain-gut interaction, to seek medical attention. It represents a substantial burden to patients and is associated with anxiety, depression, reductions in quality of life, and impaired social functioning, as well as increased direct and indirect health care costs to society. Unfortunately, the diagnosis and treatment of chronic visceral pain is difficult, in part because our understanding of the underlying pathophysiologic basis is incomplete. In this review, we highlight recent advances in peripheral pain signaling and specific physiologic and pathophysiologic preclinical mechanisms that result in the sensitization of peripheral pain pathways. We focus on preclinical mechanisms that have been translated into treatment approaches and summarize the current evidence base for directing treatment toward these mechanisms of chronic visceral pain derived from clinical trials. The effective management of chronic visceral pain remains of critical importance for the quality of life of suffers. A deeper understanding of peripheral pain mechanisms is necessary and may provide the basis for novel therapeutic interventions.

Utility of irritable bowel syndrome subtypes and most troublesome symptom in predicting disease impact and burden.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the characteristics of individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) according to stool subtype or the most troublesome symptom reported by the individual, or whether these are useful in predicting the impact of IBS. METHODS: We collected demographic, gastrointestinal, and psychological symptoms, healthcare usage and direct healthcare costs, impact on work and activities of daily living, and quality of life data from individuals with Rome IV-defined IBS. KEY RESULTS: We recruited 752 people with Rome IV IBS. Individuals with IBS-D reported a poorer disease-specific quality of life than those with IBS-C or IBS-M (mean (SD) IBS-QOL 45.3 (23.0) for IBS-D, vs. 52.3 (19.9) for IBS-C, vs. 49.4 (22.0) for IBS-M, p = 0.005). Mean (SD) IBS-QOL scores were also lower amongst those who reported diarrhea (44.8 (22.3)) or urgency (44.6 (22.3)) as their most troublesome symptom, compared with those reporting abdominal pain (52.2 (22.9)), constipation (49.5 (21.8)), or abdominal bloating or distension (50.4 (21.3)). However, there were no differences in mean EQ-5D scores, IBS severity, levels of anxiety, depression, somatoform symptom-reporting, or gastrointestinal symptom-specific anxiety. Direct healthcare costs of IBS were similar across all subtypes and all most troublesome symptom groups, although some differences in work productivity and social leisure activities were detected. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: There appears to be limited variation in the characteristics of individuals with Rome IV IBS based on both stool subtypes and most troublesome symptom reported, suggesting that gastrointestinal symptoms alone have limited ability to predict disease impact and burden.

Natural history and impact of irritable bowel syndrome-type symptoms in inflammatory bowel disease during 12 months of longitudinal follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the natural history and impact of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)-type symptoms on psychological health and quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to address this in a 12-month longitudinal follow-up study of secondary care patients. METHODS: We collected demographic, Rome III IBS-type symptom, psychological, and quality of life data, with questionnaires at 3-month intervals, over 12 months of follow-up in patients with IBD in clinical remission at baseline. We assessed the natural history of Rome III IBS-type symptoms over the 12 months of the study and compared psychological and quality of life data between those reporting Rome III IBS-type symptoms at each of the points of follow-up with those not reporting such symptoms. KEY RESULTS: Among 206 patients with IBD in clinical remission at baseline (104 [50.5%] women, mean age 56.9 years [range 18-83 years], 79 [38.3%] Crohn's disease), 33 (16.0%) reported Rome III IBS-type symptoms at baseline and 72 (35.0%) reported Rome III IBS-type symptoms at one or more time points. Among the 33 patients with Rome III IBS-type symptoms at baseline, symptoms resolved in 6 (18.2%) patients, were present throughout in 6 (18.2%) patients, and fluctuated in the remaining 21 (63.6%) patients. Among the 39 patients with new onset of Rome III IBS-type symptoms after baseline, 24 (65.1%) had symptoms at one point in time only, 10 (25.6%) at two points, four (10.3%) at three points, and one (2.6%) at four points. At each point in time, reporting IBS-type symptoms was associated with significantly higher anxiety, depression, or somatoform symptom-reporting scores, and/or lower quality of life scores. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: In this 12-month follow-up study, one-third of patients with IBD reported presence of Rome III IBS-type symptoms at any point in time. Reporting such symptoms was associated with significant impacts on psychological health and/or quality of life.

Novel Symptom Subgroups in Individuals With Irritable Bowel Syndrome Predict Disease Impact and Burden.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current classification systems based on bowel habit fail to capture the multidimensional nature of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We previously derived and validated a classification system, using latent class analysis, incorporating factors beyond bowel habit. We applied this in another cohort of people with IBS to assess its ability to capture the impact of IBS on the individual, the health care system, and society. METHODS: We collected demographic, symptom, and psychological health data from adults in the community self-identifying as having IBS, and meeting Rome IV criteria. We applied our latent class analysis model to identify the 7 subgroups (clusters) described previously, based on overall gastrointestinal symptom severity and psychological burden. We assessed quality of life, health care costs (£1 = $1.20), employment status, annual income, work productivity, and ability to perform work duties in each cluster. RESULTS: Of 1278 responders, 752 (58.8%) met Rome IV criteria. The 7-cluster model fit the data well. The patients in the 4 clusters with the highest psychological burden, and particularly those in cluster 6 with high overall gastrointestinal symptom severity and high psychological burden, showed lower educational levels, higher gastrointestinal symptom-specific anxiety, were more likely to have consulted a gastroenterologist, and used more drugs for IBS. IBS-related and generic quality of life were impaired significantly in these 4 clusters and significantly fewer individuals reported earning ≥£30,000 per year. Productivity and the ability to work, manage at home, engage in social and private leisure activities, and maintain close relationships all were impacted significantly, and IBS-related health care costs over the previous 12 months were highest in these 4 clusters. In those in cluster 6, costs were more than £1000 per person per year. CONCLUSIONS: Our clusters identify groups of individuals with significant impairments in quality of life, earning potential, and ability to work and function socially, who are high utilizers of health care.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Efficacy of Mesalamine in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) demonstrate low-grade inflammation in the intestine. Mesalamine, which has anti-inflammatory effects, may be an efficacious treatment for IBS, but studies are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of mesalamine in IBS. METHODS: We searched the medical literature up to September 14, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mesalamine in IBS. We judged efficacy and safety using dichotomous assessments of effect on global IBS symptoms, abdominal pain, bowel habit or stool frequency, and occurrence of any adverse event. We pooled data using a random effects model, with efficacy and safety reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 8 eligible RCTs (820 patients). Mesalamine was more efficacious than placebo for global IBS symptoms (RR of global symptoms not improving, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.95; number needed to treat = 10; 95% CI, 6-27), but not for abdominal pain or bowel habit or stool frequency. Subgroup analyses demonstrated efficacy of mesalamine in IBS with diarrhea for global IBS symptoms (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99), but not patients with other predominant bowel habits or those with post-infection IBS. Adverse event rates were no higher with mesalamine (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.63) but were reported in only 5 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalamine may be modestly efficacious for global symptoms in IBS, particularly IBS with diarrhea, but quality of evidence was low. Adequately powered high quality RCTs of mesalamine in IBS are needed.

Maintenance of clinical remission with biologics and small molecules in inflammatory bowel disease according to trial design: Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Design of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining maintenance of clinical remission in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) varies, with some trials re-randomising patients who have responded to active drug during induction to either active drug or placebo and others treating patients through with active drug or placebo from baseline. Whether this influences therapeutic gain of drug over placebo is unknown. METHODS: We searched the literature to January 2023 for maintenance of remission trials of biologics or small molecules versus placebo in IBD. We extracted maintenance of remission rates according to trial design; either trials re-randomising patients or trials treating patients through. We pooled data in a meta-analysis for all patients, and according to type of IBD. We calculated the number needed to treat (NNT), with a 95% confidence interval (CI), to assess therapeutic gain of active drug over placebo according to trial design. RESULTS: We identified 37 maintenance of remission trials (12,075 patients). Rates of maintenance of clinical remission were higher (41.9% with active drug, versus 20.3% with placebo), and NNT lowest (5; 95% CI 4-6), in trials re-randomising patients compared with those treating through (maintenance of remission rate 30.9% with active drug versus 14.6% with placebo, NNT = 7; 95% CI 5-9). Results were similar when trials were analysed according to IBD type but were more marked in ulcerative colitis RCTs (maintenance of remission rates in re-randomised trials 39.4% with active drug versus 17.8% with placebo, NNT = 5; 95% CI 3-7; treat-through trials 27.3% with active drug versus 11.9% with placebo, NNT = 7; 95% CI 5-11.5). CONCLUSION: Trials re-randomising patients had generally higher maintenance of remission rates, lower NNTs, and greater therapeutic gains over placebo.

Impact of Opioid Use on the Natural History of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Prospective Longitudinal Follow-up Study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use is increasingly prevalent amongst patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but whether opioids have deleterious effects, or their use is merely linked with more severe disease, is unclear. We conducted a longitudinal follow-up study examining this issue. METHODS: Data on demographics, gastrointestinal and psychological symptoms, quality of life, and opioid use were recorded at baseline. Data on healthcare use and adverse disease outcomes were obtained from a review of electronic medical records at 12 months. Characteristics at baseline of those using opioids and those who were not were compared, in addition to occurrence of flare, prescription of glucocorticosteroids, treatment escalation, hospitalization, or intestinal resection during the 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 1029 eligible participants, 116 (11.3%) were taking opioids at baseline. Medium (odds ratio [OR], 4.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-13.6) or high (OR, 8.03; 95% CI, 2.21-29.2) levels of somatoform symptom-reporting and use of antidepressants (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.34-4.84) or glucocorticosteroids (OR, 6.63; 95% CI, 2.26-19.5; P < .01 for all analyses) were independently associated with opioid use. Following multivariate analysis, opioid users were significantly more likely to undergo intestinal resection (hazard ratio,  7.09; 95% CI, 1.63 to 30.9; P = .009), particularly when codeine or dihydrocodeine were excluded (hazard ratio, 42.9; 95% CI, 3.36 to 548; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid use in IBD is associated with psychological comorbidity and increased risk of intestinal resection, particularly in stronger formulations. Future studies should stratify the risk of individual opioids, so that robust prescribing algorithms can be developed and assess whether addressing psychological factors in routine IBD care could be an effective opioid avoidance strategy.

Of the 1029 patients with IBD in this study, opioid use exceeded 10% and was associated with psychological comorbidity and an increased risk of intestinal resection during longitudinal follow-up, particularly when more potent formulations were used.

Novel symptom clusters predict disease impact and healthcare utilisation in inflammatory bowel disease: Prospective longitudinal follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Predicting adverse disease outcomes and high-volume users of healthcare amongst patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is difficult. AIMS: The aim of this study is to use latent class analysis to create novel clusters of patients and to assess whether these predict outcomes during 6.5 years of longitudinal follow-up. METHODS: Baseline demographic features, disease activity indices, anxiety, depression, and somatoform symptom-reporting scores were recorded for 692 adults. Faecal calprotectin (FC) was analysed at baseline in 348 (50.3%) patients (<250 mcg/g defined biochemical remission). Using baseline gastrointestinal and psychological symptoms, latent class analysis identified specific patient clusters. Rates of glucocorticosteroid prescription or flare, escalation, hospitalisation, or intestinal resection were compared between clusters using multivariate Cox regression. RESULTS: A three-cluster model was the optimum solution; 132 (19.1%) patients had below-average gastrointestinal and psychological symptoms (cluster 1), 352 (50.9%) had average levels of gastrointestinal and psychological symptoms (cluster 2), and 208 (30.1%) had the highest levels of both gastrointestinal and psychological symptoms (cluster 3). Compared with cluster 1, cluster 3 had significantly increased risk of flare or glucocorticosteroid prescription (hazard ratio (HR): 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.46-3.10), escalation (HR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.34-2.76), a composite of escalation, hospitalisation, or intestinal resection (HR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.45-2.88), or any of the endpoints of interest (HR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.45-2.93). Healthcare utilisation was highest in cluster 3. CONCLUSIONS: Novel model-based clusters identify patients with IBD at higher risk of adverse disease outcomes who are high-volume users of healthcare.

Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

Efficacy of Probiotics in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled. RESULTS: We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses.

Efficacy of psychological therapies in people with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence for an influence of the gut-brain axis on the natural history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Psychological therapies could, therefore, have beneficial effects in individuals with IBD, but data are conflicting. We aimed to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether the inclusion of more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed any beneficial effects and whether these effects varied by treatment modality. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 1, 2016, to April 30, 2023, for RCTs published in any language recruiting individuals aged 16 years or older with IBD that compared psychological therapy with a control intervention or treatment as usual. We pooled dichotomous data to obtain relative risks (RR) with 95% CIs of inducing remission in people with active disease or of relapse in people with quiescent disease at final follow-up. We pooled continuous data to estimate standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs in disease activity indices, anxiety scores, depression scores, stress scores, and quality-of-life scores at completion of therapy and at final follow-up. We pooled all data using a random-effects model. Trials were analysed separately according to whether they recruited people with clinically active IBD or predominantly individuals whose disease was quiescent. We conducted subgroup analyses by mode of therapy and according to whether trials recruited selected groups of people with IBD. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess bias at the study level and assessed funnel plots using the Egger test. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. FINDINGS: The updated literature search identified a total of 469 new records, 11 of which met eligibility criteria. 14 studies were included from our previous meta-analysis published in 2017. In total, 25 RCTs were eligible for this meta-analysis, all of which were at high risk of bias. Only four RCTs recruited patients with active IBD; there were insufficient data for meta-analysis of remission, disease activity indices, depression scores, and stress scores. In patients with active IBD, psychological therapy had no benefit compared with control for anxiety scores at completion of therapy (two RCTs; 79 people; SMD -1·04, 95% CI -2·46 to 0·39), but did have significant benefit for quality-of-life scores at completion of therapy (four RCTs; 309 people; 0·68, 0·09 to 1·26), although heterogeneity between studies was high (I2=82%). In individuals with quiescent IBD, RR of relapse of disease activity was not reduced with psychological therapy (ten RCTs; 861 people; RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·62 to 1·12), with moderate heterogeneity (I2=60%), and the funnel plot suggested evidence of publication bias or other small study effects (Egger test p=0·046). For people with quiescent IBD at completion of therapy, there was no difference in disease activity indices between psychological therapy and control (13 RCTs; 1015 people; SMD -0·01, 95% CI -0·13 to 0·12; I2=0%). Anxiety scores (13 RCTs; 1088 people; -0·23, -0·36 to -0·09; 18%), depression scores (15 RCTs; 1189 people; -0·26, -0·38 to -0·15; 2%), and stress scores (11 RCTs; 813 people; -0·22, -0·42 to -0·03; 47%) were significantly lower, and quality-of-life scores (16 RCTs; 1080 people; 0·31, 0·16 to 0·46; 30%) were significantly higher, with psychological therapy versus control at treatment completion. Statistically significant benefits persisted up to final follow-up for depression scores (12 RCTs; 856 people; -0·16, -0·30 to -0·03; 0%). Effects were strongest in RCTs of third-wave therapies and in RCTs that recruited people with impaired psychological health, fatigue, or reduced quality of life at baseline. INTERPRETATION: Psychological therapies have beneficial, short-term effects on anxiety, depression, stress, and quality-of-life scores, but not on disease activity. Further RCTs in selected groups are needed to establish the place for such therapies in IBD care. FUNDING: None.

Comparison of drugs for active eosinophilic oesophagitis: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no recommendation regarding preferred drugs for active eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) because their relative efficacy is unclear. We conducted an up-to-date network meta-analysis to compare proton pump inhibitors, off-label and EoE-specific topical steroids, and biologics in EoE. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy of all drugs versus each other, or placebo, in adults and adolescents with active EoE. Results were reported as pooled relative risks with 95% CIs to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with drugs ranked according to P score RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were eligible for systematic review. Of these, 15 studies containing 1813 subjects with EoE reported extractable data for the network meta-analysis. For histological remission defined as ≤6 eosinophils/high-power field (HPF), lirentelimab 1 mg/kg monthly ranked first. For histological remission defined as ≤15 eosinophils/HPF, budesonide orally disintegrating tablet (BOT) 1 mg two times per day ranked first. For failure to achieve symptom improvement, BOT 1 mg two times per day and budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2 mg two times per day were significantly more efficacious than placebo. For failure to achieve endoscopic improvement based on the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score, BOT 1 mg two times per day and BOS 1 mg two times per day or 2 mg two times per day were significantly more efficacious than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Although this network meta-analysis supports the efficacy of most available drugs over placebo for EoE treatment, significant heterogeneity in eligibility criteria and outcome measures among available trials hampers the establishment of a solid therapeutic hierarchy.

A prospective comparison of UK and Malaysian patients with irritable bowel syndrome in secondary care.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is now known to be similar in various geographical regions, but there has been no study directly comparing characteristics of patients with IBS between populations. AIMS: To evaluate clinical and psychological differences between adults with IBS seen in secondary care in the United Kingdom (UK) and Malaysia. METHODS: Age- and sex-matched patients with IBS from a single centre in the UK (Leeds) and two centres in Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur and Kota Bharu), who fulfilled Rome III criteria, were recruited prospectively. Demographic characteristics and gastrointestinal and psychological symptoms were compared between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 266 (133 UK and 133 Malaysian) age- and sex-matched patients with Rome III IBS were recruited (mean age: 45.1 years Malaysia, vs. 46.5 years UK; 57.9% female). UK patients were more likely to consume alcohol than Malaysian patients (54.1% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.001). Compared with Malaysian patients, UK patients had more frequent abdominal pain, abdominal bloating, meal-related symptoms (p < 0.001 for all), higher symptom scores (mean 268.0 vs 166.0; p < 0.001), greater limitation of activities due to IBS (p = 0.007) and were more likely to report abnormal anxiety scores (p < 0.001). Higher perceived stress (mean 21.3 vs. 19.1, p = 0.014) and gastrointestinal symptom-specific anxiety scores (mean 50.8 vs. 43.0, p < 0.001) were also observed in UK patients. Finally, UK patients had higher somatoform symptom-reporting scores (mean 8.9 vs. 6.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IBS is more severe and is associated with a higher level of psychological symptoms in the UK compared with Malaysian patients in secondary care.