Search

Background Preventive health measures reduce treatment and disease-related complications including infections, osteoporosis, and malignancies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Although guidelines and quality measures for IBD care highlight the importance of preventive care, their uptake remains variable. This systematic review evaluates interventions aimed at improving the rates of provision and uptake of preventive health measures, including vaccinations, bone density assessment, skin cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and smoking cessation counseling. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for full text articles published until March 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions to improve the provision or uptake of 1 or more preventive health measures in adult IBD patients and if they reported pre- and postintervention outcomes. Results In all, 4655 studies were screened, and a total of 17 studies were included, including 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 cluster-controlled trial, and 15 prospective interventional studies. A variety of interventions were effective in improving the rates of adherence to preventive health measures. The most common interventions targeted gastroenterologists, including education, electronic medical records tools, and audit feedback. Other interventions targeted patients, such as education, questionnaires, and offering vaccine administration at clinic visits. Few interventions involved IBD nurses or primary care physicians. Conclusions A range of interventions—targeted at gastroenterologists, patients, or both—were effective in improving the provision and uptake of preventive care. Future studies should involve randomized controlled trials evaluating multifaceted interventions that target barriers to adherence and involve IBD nurses and primary care physicians.

Background A diverse range of treatments are available for the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs). Individual treatments, including drug therapies, behavioral therapy ("biofeedback"), psychological therapies, and dietary therapies, have been well validated in controlled, randomized trials and real-life case series. However, few studies have evaluated models of delivery of care for the whole population of referred patients with an FGID. This review evaluates models of specialist outpatient care for the management of FGIDs. Methods A systematic review was performed of full-text articles published until October 2018 in Pubmed/Medline and Embase. Studies were included if they evaluated a model of outpatient care in a specialist setting for the treatment of adult patients with an FGID and included patient-reported outcomes comprising symptoms, quality of life, or psychological well-being. Results Few studies have evaluated the delivery of care for the whole population of referred patients with an FGID, and there was one randomized comparison of different models of care. Two studies that evaluated the outcome of gastroenterologist-only clinics suggested poor long-term results. Two non-comparative case series reported the outcome of multidisciplinary care, including gastroenterologists and psychological therapists, suggesting improved patient quality of life and psychological well-being. Conclusions Despite the high prevalence and cost of treating FGIDs, and the availability of effective treatments, there are few data and limited randomized comparisons reporting the outcome of different types of specialist care. The few data available suggest that multidisciplinary care is superior to gastroenterologist-only care, but this needs to be validated in prospective comparative studies.

Background Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) are the commonest conditions observed in gastrointestinal (GI) practice, yet the outcomes of their outpatient care are not known. Aim To evaluate the outcome for patients with FGID attending a specialist GI clinic. Methods Consecutive, newly referred patients with a FGID attending a specialist GI clinic in a tertiary hospital, over a 1-year period were reviewed and then completed a phone survey to assess current symptoms. Results Of 102 patients, 57% had irritable bowel syndrome, 28% functional dyspepsia and 15% other functional disorders. At interview, a median of 402 days after the last consultation 38% expressed symptom improvement, but 64% remained concerned about their condition despite 62% having been reassured. After treatment, 50% of employed patients took time off work because of gut symptoms. Functional dyspepsia patients were less likely to be symptomatically improved than other FGID (21% vs 45%, P = 0.02). Patients given a diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols were more likely than others to achieve symptom improvement (53% vs 31%, P = 0.03); PPI-treated patients were less likely to experience improvement (22% vs 44%, P = 0.05); other treatments did not predict outcome. Number of visits, seniority of clinician, duration of care and comorbidities did not predict outcome. Conclusion One year after attending a specialist GI clinic a minority of patients with FGID were symptomatically improved. Failure to benefit by many patients may relate to the nature of patients and conditions being treated or the limited nature and range of treatments offered. Different models of care, including more diverse multidisciplinary models, should be explored.

Summary Background Functional gastrointestinal disorders are common and costly to the health-care system. Most specialist care is provided by a gastroenterologist, but only a minority of patients have improvement in symptoms. Although they have proven to be effective, psychological, behavioural, and dietary therapies are not provided routinely. We aimed to compare the outcome of gastroenterologist-only standard care with multidisciplinary care. Methods In an open-label, single-centre, pragmatic trial, consecutive new referrals of eligible patients aged 18–80 years with Rome IV criteria-defined functional gastrointestinal disorders were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive gastroenterologist-only standard care or multidisciplinary clinic care. The multidisciplinary clinic included gastroenterologists, dietitians, gut-focused hypnotherapists, psychiatrists, and behavioural (biofeedback) physiotherapists. Randomisation was stratified by Rome IV disorder and whether referred from gastroenterology or colorectal clinic. Outcomes were assessed at clinic discharge or 9 months after the initial visit. The primary outcome was a score of 4 (slightly better) or 5 (much better) on a 5-point Likert scale assessing global symptom improvement. Modified intention-to-treat analysis included all patients who attended at least one clinic visit and who had answered the primary outcome question. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03078634. Findings Between March 16, 2017, and May 10, 2018, 1632 patients referred to the hospital gastrointestinal clinics were screened, of whom 442 were eligible for a screening telephone call and 188 were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (n=65) or multidisciplinary care (n=123). 144 patients formed the modified intention-to-treat analysis (n=46 in the standard-care group and n=98 in the multidisciplinary-care group), 90 (63%) of whom were women. 61 (62%) of 98 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group patients saw allied clinicians. 26 (57%) patients in the standard-care group and 82 (84%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had global symptom improvement (risk ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·13–1·93]; p=0·00045). 29 (63%) patients in the standard-care group and 81 (83%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had adequate relief of symptoms in the past 7 days (p=0·010). Patients in the multidisciplinary-care group were more likely to experience a 50% or higher reduction in all Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index symptom clusters than were patients in the standard-care group. Of the patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a 50-point or higher reduction in IBS-SSS occurred in 10 (38%) of 26 patients in the standard care group compared with 39 (66%) of 59 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·017). Of the patients with functional dyspepsia, a 50% reduction in the Nepean Dyspepsia Index was noted in three (11%) of 11 patients in the standard-care group and in 13 (46%) of 28 in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·47). After treatment, the median HADS scores were higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (13 [8–20] vs 10 [6–16]; p=0·096) and the median EQ-5D-5L quality of life visual analogue scale was lower in the standard-care group compared with the multidisciplinary-care group (70 [IQR 50–80] vs 75 [65–85]; p=0·0087). The eight SF-36 scales did not differ between the groups at discharge. After treatment, median Somatic Symptom Scale-8 score was higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (10 [IQR 7–7] vs 9 [5–13]; p=0·082). Cost per successful outcome was higher in the standard-care group than the multidisciplinary-care group. Interpretation Integrated multidisciplinary clinical care appears to be superior to gastroenterologist-only care in relation to symptoms, specific functional disorders, psychological state, quality of life, and cost of care for the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Consideration should be given to providing multidisciplinary care for patients with a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Funding None.

(1) Background: The Food Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) International Food Standards Codex Alimentarius CXS 192e International Food Standards (hereafter, CODEX) declares additives non-toxic, but they have been associated with changes to the microbiota changes and thinning of the mucus layer of the gut. Their widespread use has occurred in parallel with increased inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) incidence. This paper reports on the development and validation of surveys to estimate additive intake. (2) Methods: Dietitians created a food-additive database, with a focus on additives that have been associated with IBD. For each additive, information on the CODEX food-category they are permitted in and the associated maximum permissible levels (mg/kg) was recorded. Based on the database, questions to assess early life (part 1) and recent (part 2) additive intake were written. Forward&ndash, backward translation from English to Chinese was undertaken. Thirty-one individuals were evaluated to assess understandability. A further fifty-seven individuals completed the tool on two occasions, a fortnight apart, agreement was assessed using Cohen&rsquo, s kappa coefficient or the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). (3) Results: The participants reported that it was difficult to remember food intake and estimate portion sizes. The participants also noted confusion around the term &lsquo, home-grown&rsquo, Instructions and definitions were added, after this, respondents judged the questionnaires as clear. The average kappa coefficient for part 1 and part 2 questions were 0.61 and 0.67, respectively. The average ICC ranged from 0.30 to 0.94, three food lists were removed due to low reliability. (4) Conclusions: Two tools have been created and validated, in two languages, that reliably assess remote and recent food additive intake.

Background Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are the commonest reason for gastroenterological consultation, with patients usually seen by a specialist working in isolation. There is a wealth of evidence testifying to the benefit provided by dieticians, behavioral therapists, hypnotherapists and psychotherapists in treating these conditions, yet they rarely form a part of the therapeutic team, and these treatment modalities are rarely offered as part of the therapeutic management. There has been little examination of different models of care for FGIDs. We hypothesize that multi-disciplinary integrated care is superior to standard specialist-based care in the treatment of functional gut disorders. Methods The “MANTRA” (Multidisciplinary Treatment for Functional Gut Disorders) study compares comprehensive multi-disciplinary outpatient care with standard hospital outpatient care. Consecutive new referrals to the gastroenterology and colorectal outpatient clinics of a single secondary and tertiary care hospital of patients with an FGID, defined by the Rome IV criteria, will be included. Patients will be prospectively randomized 2:1 to multi-disciplinary (gastroenterologist, gut-hypnotherapist, psychiatrist, behavioral therapist (‘biofeedback’) and dietician) or standard care (gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon). Patients are assessed up to 12 months after completing treatment. The primary outcome is an improvement on a global assessment scale at the end of treatment. Symptoms, quality of life, psychological well-being, and healthcare costs are secondary outcome measures. Discussion There have been few studies examining how best to deliver care for functional gut disorders. The MANTRA study will define the clinical and cost benefits of two different models of care for these highly prevalent disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION Number: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03078634 Registered on Clinicaltrials.gov , completed recruitment, registered on March 13th 2017. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been received by the St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne human research ethics committee (HREC-A 138/16). The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. Protocol version 1.2