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).

Burden and Treatment of Chronic Upper GI Symptoms and Diagnoses: A Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are a common reason for seeking medical care. We aim to determine the rates of ambulatory care use and to characterize demographics, work-up, and treatment (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic) for patients with chronic upper GI symptoms and conditions in the United States. METHODS: Estimates of annual visits for the most common upper GI symptoms and diagnoses including gastroesophageal reflux disease, dyspepsia, nausea and vomiting, and gastroparesis were recorded from the 2007-2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. Only chronic conditions, defined as >3 months, were included. We calculated the weighted proportion of ambulatory visits associated with pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic treatment (eg, diet, complementary and alternative medicine), or both. RESULTS: A total of 116,184,475 weighted ambulatory visits were identified between the years of 2007 and 2015 for adults (average of 12,909,386 annual visits) with chronic upper GI symptoms and diagnoses. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was the most common reason for an ambulatory visit (n = 11,200,193), followed by dyspepsia (n = 1,232,598), nausea and vomiting (n = 714,834), and gastroparesis (n = 140,312). Pharmacologic treatment was more common than nonpharmacologic treatment (44.7% vs 28.5%). A total of 37.6% of patients were not receiving treatment at the time of the visit. These treatment patterns did not significantly change over the time of our study. Upper endoscopies were the most ordered test, representing 7.5% of all investigated upper GI symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic upper GI symptoms and diagnoses account for a high number of annual health care visits, both in primary care and specialty care. Although there are several treatments, many of these patients are not on any treatments.

Prevalence and Associated Factors of Bloating: Results From the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Bloating is a common symptom in the general population and among disorders of gut-brain interaction, although its prevalence has not been well characterized. The aim of this study was to report the prevalence of bloating as a symptom in the worldwide population and to identify factors associated with this symptom in the general population. METHODS: Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study internet survey data were analyzed. After excluding respondents with potential organic causes of bowel symptoms, the current analysis included 51,425 individuals in 26 countries. Data included diet, medical history, quality of life, and Rome IV diagnostic questions. Presence of bloating was defined as experiencing bloating at least once per week for the last 3 months. Descriptive statistics estimated prevalence by country, region, and disorder of gut-brain interaction diagnosis. Logistic regression evaluated predictors of bloating. RESULTS: Nearly 18% of the global study population reported bloating (ranging from 11% in East Asia to 20% in Latin America). Prevalence decreased with age and women were approximately twice as likely as men to report bloating. More than one-half of respondents who reported weekly epigastric pain (71.39%), nausea (59.7%), or abdominal pain (61.69%) also reported bloating at least once per week. In logistic regression, the strongest associations were with abdominal pain (odds ratio, 2.90) and epigastric pain (odds ratio, 2.07). CONCLUSIONS: Bloating is common throughout the world. Nearly 18% of the general population experience bloating at least once per week. Reported bloating prevalence is lower in older age groups, most common in women, and strongly associated with abdominal pain.

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.

How Would You Manage This Patient With Recurrent Diverticulitis? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Acute diverticulitis, which refers to inflammation or infection, or both, of a colonic diverticulum, is a common medical condition that may occur repeatedly in some persons. It most often manifests with left-sided abdominal pain, which may be associated with low-grade fever and other gastrointestinal symptoms. Complications may include abscess, fistula formation, perforation, and bowel obstruction. The American College of Physicians recently published practice guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute diverticulitis, the role of colonoscopy after resolution, and interventions to prevent recurrence of this condition. Among the recommendations were the use of abdominal computed tomography (CT) scanning in cases where there was diagnostic uncertainty, initial management of uncomplicated cases in the outpatient setting without antibiotics, referral for colonoscopy after an initial episode if not performed recently, and discussion of elective surgery to prevent recurrent disease in patients with complicated diverticulitis or frequent episodes of uncomplicated disease. Here, 2 gastroenterologists with expertise in acute diverticulitis debate CT scanning for diagnosis, antibiotics for treatment, colonoscopy to screen for underlying malignancy, and elective surgery to prevent recurrent disease.

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.

Examining the Nocebo Effect in Trials of Neuromodulators for Use in Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.

INTRODUCTION: Nocebo effects are believed to influence the rate of reported adverse events (AE) and subject withdrawal in both the treatment and placebo groups of randomized clinical trials (RCT). Neuromodulators are commonly prescribed to treat disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), but adherence to these medications is often limited by side effects such as headache, dry mouth, fatigue, and altered bowel habits. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the proportion and risk difference of patients who experienced side effects leading to withdrawal in the placebo arm vs the treatment arm of RCT of neuromodulators for DGBI. We also sought to estimate the risk of developing any AE in the placebo arm of these studies and the rate of specific individual AEs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Searches to identify RCT that included terms for DGBI and for commonly prescribed neuromodulators. We calculated pooled proportions of patients experiencing an AE leading to withdrawal in the active treatment group vs the placebo group with 95% confidence intervals (CI), the pooled proportions of patients experiencing any AE, the pooled proportions of patients experiencing specific AE such as dizziness and headache, the pooled proportions of patients experiencing severe AE, and corresponding pooled risk differences with 95% CI. RESULTS: There were 30 RCT included representing 2,284 patients with DGBI. Twenty-seven RCT reported data on AE leading to withdrawal. The pooled proportion of total patients with AE leading to withdrawal in the placebo group was 4% (95% CI 0.02-0.04). The pooled proportion of patients with AE leading to withdrawal who received neuromodulators was 9% (95% CI 0.06-0.13). In the 12 studies reporting data on patients experiencing at least 1 AE, the pooled proportion of patients experiencing any AE in the placebo group was 18% (95% CI 0.08-0.30), compared with 43% (95% CI 0.24-0.63) in the neuromodulator group. Thus, approximately 44% of the rate of withdrawal (0.04/0.09) and 42% of the rate reporting any side effects (0.18/0.43) in the neuromodulator group may be attributed to nocebo effects in the right context. Subgroup analysis by sex, medication class, risk of bias, and specific DGBI revealed differing withdrawal rates. There was no statistically significant difference in patients experiencing individual AE of dizziness, headache, or diarrhea. Rates of dry mouth, fatigue, and constipation were higher in treatment groups compared with those in placebo groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with DGBI in RCT randomized to placebo groups frequently experience AE and AE that lead to withdrawal consistent with a strong nocebo effect. Nonspecific AE such as dizziness, headaches, and diarrhea occurred similarly in patients receiving placebo compared with those receiving neuromodulators.

What Is Unspecified Functional Bowel Disorder? A Commonly Seen, Rarely Recognized, and Poorly Understood Diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Unspecified functional bowel disorder (FBD-U) is a Rome IV diagnosis of exclusion and occurs when patients report bowel symptoms but do not meet the criteria for other functional bowel disorders (FBD; irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], functional constipation [FC], functional diarrhea [FDr], or functional bloating). Previous research suggests that FBD-U is as/more common than IBS. METHODS: One thousand five hundred one patients at a single-center tertiary care center completed an electronic survey. Study questionnaires included Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaires, anxiety, depression, sleep, health care utilization, and bowel symptom severity measures. RESULTS: Eight hundred thirteen patients met Rome IV criteria for a FBD and 194 patients (13.1%) met criteria for FBD-U, representing the second most common FBD after IBS. Severity of abdominal pain, constipation, and diarrhea were lower in FBD-U compared with other FBD, whereas health care utilization was similar among the groups. Scores on measures of anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances were similar in FBD-U compared with FC and FDr but were less severe than IBS. Between 25% and 50% of patients with FBD-U did not meet Rome IV criteria for other FBD due to timing of onset of the target symptom (e.g., constipation for FC, diarrhea for FDr, and abdominal pain for IBS). DISCUSSION: FBD-U, by Rome IV criteria, is highly prevalent in clinical settings. These patients are not represented in mechanistic studies or clinical trials for not having met Rome IV criteria for other FBD. Making future Rome criteria less stringent would minimize the number fulfilling criteria for FBD-U and maximize the true representation of FBD in clinical trials.

Dysphagia Worsens With Increasing Ineffective Swallows Among Patients With Ineffective Esophageal Motility.

INTRODUCTION: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common motility disorder identified on esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM), but patients with this finding may be asymptomatic. Therefore, we aimed to identify specific HRM findings predictive of symptoms in IEM. METHODS: Adult patients (≥18 y) who underwent HRM between March 2016 and July 2019 were retrospectively evaluated and reclassified according to Chicago Classification 4.0 (CC4.0). Demographic information, HRM parameters, and gastroesophageal reflux disease Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire responses were captured among those with normal manometry or IEM. We evaluated the association between heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia, with respect to HRM findings including ineffective swallows. RESULTS: Of 379 patients, 243 (64.1%) had a normal manometry, 136 (35.9%) were on IEM spectrum, and 73 (19.3%) had conclusive IEM by CC4.0. Mean dysphagia scores were significantly higher in those with conclusive IEM compared with those with normal HRM (2.00 vs. 1.36, P =0.002), as was the percentage of individuals reporting dysphagia affecting daily activities (21.9% vs. 11.4%, P =0.02). Heartburn and regurgitation symptoms did not differ between groups. In a multivariable model of IEM patients, the percentage of ineffective swallows independently predicted a higher dysphagia burden (ß regression coefficient: 0.032, P =0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Applying the CC4.0 definition for conclusive IEM identifies a group of patients with worse dysphagia symptoms. Within this group, the percentage of ineffective swallows was an independent predictor of dysphagia severity. These findings may help practitioners and patients contextualize the heterogeneous diagnosis of IEM.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients Presenting With Bloating as a Predominant Symptom.

BACKGROUND: The estimated prevalence of bloating is 15 to 30% in the adult US population and is even higher in patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs). Despite this frequency, there is little research into patients who endorse bloating as a predominant symptom. The aim of this study was to better characterize these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: New patients with DGBIs were asked to identify their 3 most predominant symptoms over the preceding 3 months; those who reported bloating were classified as "bloating predominant." Rome IV and symptom-specific questionnaires were administered to assess for the frequency of DGBIs and other predominant symptoms in this patient population. Using univariable and multivariable modeling, we analyzed the associations between bloating predominance, DGBI subtype, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 586 patients surveyed, 242 (41%) reported predominant bloating. Bloating-predominant patients were more likely to be female, younger, and meet the criteria for IBS-mixed (IBS-M), functional constipation, and functional dyspepsia compared with nonbloating-predominant patients. Bloating-predominant patients were also more likely to endorse concurrently predominant constipation, incomplete evacuation, abdominal pain, belching, and/or nausea. On multivariable logistic regression, constipation and abdominal pain severity were positively associated, although depression was negatively associated with predominant bloating. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with predominant bloating are more likely to have constipation-related symptoms than diarrhea-related symptoms. They are also more likely to have more severe abdominal pain than patients without predominant bloating. These findings help characterize patients with bloating as a predominant symptom and suggest that diagnosing and treating constipation should be considered as first-line treatment.