Search

Background: Treatments targeting the gut-brain axis (GBA) are effective at reducing symptom burden in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The prevalence of common mental disorders and IBS-type symptom reporting is significantly higher in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than would be expected, suggesting potential GBA effects in this setting. Manipulation of the GBA may offer novel treatment strategies in selected patients with IBD. We present a narrative review of the bi-directional effects of the GBA in IBD and explore the potential for GBA-targeted therapies in this setting., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant articles published by March 2024., Results: The bi-directional relationship between psychological well-being and adverse longitudinal disease activity outcomes, and the high prevalence of IBS-type symptom reporting highlight the presence of GBA-mediated effects in IBD. Treatments targeting gut-brain interactions including brain-gut behavioural treatments, neuromodulators, and dietary interventions appear to be useful adjunctive treatments in a subset of patients., Conclusions: Psychological morbidity is prevalent in patients with IBD. The relationship between longitudinal disease activity outcomes, IBS-type symptom reporting, and poor psychological health is mediated via the GBA. Proactive management of psychological health should be integrated into routine care. Further clinical trials of GBA-targeted therapies, conducted in selected groups of patients with co-existent common mental disorders, or those who report IBS-type symptoms, are required to inform effective integrated models of care in the future., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (© 2023 The Authors. Neurogastroenterology & Motility published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Brigida Barberio: none. David J Gracie: none. Christopher J. Black: none. Alexander C Ford: none., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)