Search

BACKGROUND: Olorinab is a highly selective, peripherally acting, full agonist of cannabinoid receptor 2. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of olorinab to treat abdominal pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) and constipation (IBS-C). METHODS: CAPTIVATE was a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Eligible participants aged 18-70 years with IBS-C and IBS-D diagnosed per Rome IV received olorinab 10 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg three times daily (TID) or placebo TID for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in patient-reported average abdominal pain score (AAPS) from baseline to Week 12. KEY RESULTS: A total of 273 participants were randomized to receive olorinab 10 mg (n = 67), olorinab 25 mg (n = 67), olorinab 50 mg (n = 69), or placebo (n = 70). Although a treatment response was observed across all groups, the weekly change in average AAPS from baseline to Week 12 was not significantly different between placebo and any olorinab dose. In a prespecified subgroup analysis of participants with a baseline AAPS ≥6.5, olorinab 50 mg (n = 35) significantly improved AAPS compared with placebo (n = 30) (p = 0.014). Adverse event rates were comparable between olorinab and placebo and there were no reported serious adverse events or deaths. CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES: Although olorinab was well-tolerated and improved weekly AAPS, the primary endpoint was not met. However, in participants with moderate-to-severe pain at baseline (AAPS ≥6.5), olorinab 50 mg significantly improved weekly AAPS compared with placebo. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT04043455. ispartof: NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY vol:35 issue:5 ispartof: location:England status: published

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis evaluated the effect of prucalopride on abdominal bloating in participants with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) who had moderate to very severe bloating at baseline. Methods: Data from 6 phase 3/4 studies of prucalopride in participants with CIC were pooled. Abdominal bloating was assessed weekly using a 5-point scale (0–4). Results: The proportion of bloating responders (≥1-point improvement in abdominal bloating score at week 12) was higher in participants treated with prucalopride (62.1%) vs placebo (49.6%). DISCUSSION: The prucalopride arm had a higher proportion of bloating responders vs placebo in this study population.

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.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.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.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.

Introduction Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common and burdensome illness. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved CIC drugs to evaluate and quantify treatment preferences compared with usual care from insurer and patient perspectives. Methods We evaluated the subset of patients with CIC and documented failure of over-the-counter (OTC) osmotic or bulk-forming laxatives. A RAND/UCLA consensus panel of 8 neurogastroenterologists informed model design. Treatment outcomes and costs were defined using integrated analyses of registered clinical trials and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-supported cost databases. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using health utilities derived from clinical trials. A 12-week time horizon was used. Results With continued OTC laxatives, CIC-related costs were $569 from an insurer perspective compared with $3,154 from a patient perspective (considering lost wages and out-of-pocket expenses). CIC prescription drugs increased insurer costs by $618-$1,015 but decreased patient costs by $327-$1,117. Effectiveness of CIC drugs was similar (0.02 QALY gained/12 weeks or ∼7 healthy days gained/year). From an insurer perspective, prescription drugs (linaclotide, prucalopride, and plecanatide) seemed less cost-effective than continued OTC laxatives (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$150,000/QALY gained). From a patient perspective, the cost-effective algorithm started with plecanatide, followed by choosing between prucalopride and linaclotide starting at the 145-μg dose (favoring prucalopride among patients whose disease affects their work productivity). The patient perspective was driven by drug tolerability and treatment effects on quality of life. Discussion Addressing costs at a policy level has the potential to enable patients and clinicians to move from navigating barriers in treatment access toward truly optimizing treatment choice.

Introduction Peppermint oil is often used to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS); however, the overall quality of previous studies is low, and findings have been heterogeneous. This study aimed to compare the effects of peppermint oil vs placebo in relieving IBS symptoms. Methods In a 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at a single academic center in the United States, individuals diagnosed with IBS (Rome IV criteria), with moderate to severe symptoms based on the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS score ≥175), were randomized to enteric-coated peppermint oil 180 mg 3 times daily vs placebo in a 1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was mean change in IBS-SSS scores from baseline to 6-week endpoint. Results A modified intent-to-treat analysis revealed that there were substantial mean improvements from baseline to 6-week endpoint in the main outcome measure (IBS-SSS) for both peppermint oil (90.8, SD = 75.3) and placebo (100.3, SD = 99.6). Although the peppermint oil group reported numerically lower improvement than the placebo group, the effect size was small (d = -0.11), and the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.97). Similarly, both groups reported substantial improvements on the secondary endpoints; but again, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups on any of the secondary measures. Sensitivity analyses using multiple imputation to replace missing data produced similar results and revealed no significant differences between peppermint oil and placebo on any outcome measure. Discussion Peppermint oil and placebo both showed clinically meaningful improvement in IBS symptoms. However, there were no significant differences between the groups. Further large, rigorous trials are needed to evaluate the role of peppermint oil for the treatment of IBS.

OBJECTIVES Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are commonly used to treat disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). However, these medications are often associated with side effects that lead to early treatment discontinuation. Research in other chronic medical conditions suggests that many TCA side effects may be caused by nocebo (negative placebo) effects. The current study tests a brief, verbal intervention aimed at improving tolerance of TCAs in DGBI by providing education about nocebo effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS This pilot randomized controlled trial was performed in a tertiary care gastroenterology clinic. Participants with DGBI were randomized "standard information," describing the benefits and risks of TCAs, or "augmented information," which included an additional

Health care providers are likely to encounter patients with recurrent unexplained abdominal pain. Because hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease, it may not be part of the differential diagnosis, especially for patients who do not have concurrent skin swelling in addition to abdominal symptoms. Abdominal pain is very common in patients with HAE, occurring in up to 93% of patients, with recurrent abdominal pain reported in up to 80% of patients. In 49% of HAE attacks with abdominal symptoms, isolated abdominal pain was the only symptom. Other abdominal symptoms that commonly present in patients with HAE include distension, cramping, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The average time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis is 6 to 23 years. Under-recognition of HAE in patients presenting with predominant gastrointestinal symptoms is a key factor contributing to the delay in diagnosis, increasing the likelihood of unnecessary or exploratory surgeries or procedures and the potential risk of related complications. HAE should be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients with unexplained abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea who have complete resolution of symptoms between episodes. As highly effective targeted therapies for HAE exist, recognition and diagnosis of HAE in patients presenting with isolated abdominal pain may significantly improve morbidity and mortality for these individuals.

Introduction Patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) are high users of health care. Past studies exploring predictors of utilization have lacked patient-level clinical data. The aim of the current study is to identify demographic, clinical, and psychological predictors of health care utilization in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional constipation (FC), and functional diarrhea (FDr). Methods Consecutive new patients diagnosed with IBS, FC, and FDr (using Rome IV criteria) completed questionnaires assessing health care utilization as well as clinical and psychological symptoms. Health care utilization was assessed using a 13-item measure inquiring about the previous 6 months. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System (PROMIS) was used to assess severity of abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance. Results Of the 507 patients diagnosed with IBS, FC, or FDr, 434 completed the health care utilization questionnaire (mean age of 44 years, 79.5% female, and 73.5% IBS). In the final multivariable models, more severe abdominal pain and higher depression scores were significantly associated with increased utilization of (i) total outpatient visits, (ii) outpatient visits for gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, and (iii) number of medications for GI symptoms. More severe abdominal pain was also significantly predictive of GI-related emergency department visits. Altered bowel habits were not consistent predictors of health care utilization. Discussion Severity of abdominal pain and depressive symptoms, but not bowel habits, is a primary driver of increased care-seeking behavior in patients with IBS, FC, and FDr.

We sought to summarize current recommendations for the diagnosis of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) and describe available management options, highlighting a newer US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agent, eluxadoline.Literature on IBS-D was assessed up to January 2020 using PubMed, with key search terms including "IBS-D diagnosis", "IBS-D management", and "eluxadoline".IBS is a common gastrointestinal disorder affecting up to 14% of US adults and is particularly prevalent in women and those aged under 50. Symptoms include abdominal pain associated with altered bowel habits (i.e. diarrhea and/or constipation subtyped based on the predominant stool pattern). As IBS-D is challenging to manage with varying symptom severity, effective treatment requires a personalized management approach. Evidence-based therapeutic options endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology can be used to effectively guide treatment. Dietary and lifestyle modifications, including adequate hydration, reducing caffeine and alcohol intake, and increasing soluble fiber intake may lead to symptom improvement. Over-the-counter medications such as loperamide are frequently recommended and may improve stool frequency and rectal urgency; however, for the outcome of abdominal pain, mixed results have been observed. Several off-label prescription medications are useful in IBS-D management, including tricyclic antidepressants, bile acid sequestrants, and antispasmodics. Three prescription medications have been approved by the FDA for IBS-D: alosetron, eluxadoline, and rifaximin.IBS-D can be effectively managed in the primary care setting in the absence of alarm features. Benefits and risks of pharmacologic interventions should be weighed during treatment selection.

Prescription drug costs exert profound effects on commercial insurance coverage and access to effective therapy. We aimed to assess threshold pricing to achieve budget neutrality of FDA-approved drugs treating irritable bowel syndrome from an insurance perspective, based on cost-savings resulting in decreased healthcare utilization through effective disease management. We constructed a decision-analytic model from an insurance perspective to assess the budget impact of IBS prescription drugs under usual insurance coverage levels in practice: (1) unrestricted drug access or (2) step therapy in a primary care population of middle-age, care-seeking IBS patients. Budget-neutral drug prices were then calculated which resulted in $0 budget impact to insurers with a short-term, one-year time horizon. If used according to FDA labeling, IBS-D drugs cost between $4778 and $16,844 per year and IBS-C drugs cost between $4319 and $4955 per year. These drug costs often exceed insurance expenditures of $6999 for IBS-D and $3929 for IBS-C if left untreated. Therefore, for drugs to have $0 budget impact to insurers, their prices would need to be discounted 36.7–74.2% for IBS-D drugs and 59.3–82.5% for IBS-C. IBS drugs are already priced to support step therapy “failing one of several common, inexpensive IBS treatments with a responder rate > 30–40%,” reflecting the subpopulation with more severe disease and greater healthcare costs. Broader prescription drug coverage for patients failing common, inexpensive IBS treatments to which at least 30–40% of patients would typically respond appears warranted to enable gastroenterologists to offer personalized approaches targeting specific mechanisms of this heterogeneous disease.

INTRODUCTION: Tenapanor is a first-in-class, minimally absorbed, small-molecule inhibitor of the gastrointestinal sodium/hydrogen exchanger isoform 3. This phase 3 trial assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of tenapanor 50 mg b.i.d. for the treatment of patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). METHODS: In this randomized double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686138), patients with IBS-C received tenapanor 50 mg b.i.d. or placebo b.i.d. for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a reduction of ≥30.0% in average weekly worst abdominal pain and an increase of ≥1 weekly complete spontaneous bowel movement from baseline, both in the same week, for ≥6 of the first 12 treatment weeks (6/12-week combined responder). RESULTS: Of the 620 randomized patients with IBS-C, 593 (95.6%) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis set (tenapanor: n = 293; placebo: n = 300) and 481 patients (77.6%) completed the 26-week treatment period. In the intention-to-treat analysis set (mean age: 45.4 years; 82.1% women), a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with tenapanor were 6/12-week combined responders than those treated with placebo (36.5% vs 23.7%; P < 0.001). Abdominal symptoms and global symptoms of IBS were significantly improved with tenapanor compared with placebo. Diarrhea, the most common adverse event, was typically transient and mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea led to study drug discontinuation for 19 (6.5%) and 2 patients (0.7%) receiving tenapanor and placebo, respectively. DISCUSSION: Tenapanor 50 mg b.i.d. improved IBS-C symptoms over 26 weeks and was generally well tolerated, offering a potential new long-term treatment option for patients with IBS-C (see Visual abstract, Supplementary Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B797).

MD-7246, a delayed-release formulation of linaclotide, is designed to target the ileocaecal junction and caecum with the aim of relieving abdominal pain independently of bowel function.To evaluate the efficacy, safety and dose-response of MD-7246 in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS-D).A randomised, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial enrolled adult patients with IBS-D (Rome IV criteria). Patients were randomised to placebo or once-daily oral MD-7246 300, 600 or 1200 μg for 12 weeks. Abdominal and bowel symptoms were assessed daily. Key efficacy endpoints were change from baseline in abdominal pain and responder rates for a 30% reduction in abdominal pain in 6/12 weeks. Additional abdominal pain responder and exploratory bowel function endpoints were also assessed.Among the 388 randomised patients, there was no significant difference in mean change from baseline in abdominal pain between the MD-7246 300 μg, 600 μg and 1200 μg groups and placebo (-1.93, -1.58, -1.95 and - 2.01, respectively; p 0.05 for each group vs placebo). The abdominal pain responder rates in the MD-7246 groups were similar to or lower than those in the placebo group. All doses of MD-7246 had a minimal effect on bowel function and were generally well tolerated.MD-7246 at the doses studied did not improve abdominal pain relative to placebo in an IBS-D patient population. Similarly, most additional efficacy endpoints showed no improvement with MD-7246 relative to placebo.

Summary Background Relamorelin, a pentapeptide ghrelin receptor agonist, accelerated gastric emptying significantly and improved symptoms in adults with diabetic gastroparesis in phase 2 trials. Aim To assess the safety and tolerability of relamorelin across phase 2 trials. Methods Safety assessments in patients aged 18‐75 years (weight, adverse events [AEs] and laboratory tests) from two randomised, double‐blind phase 2 trials (NCT01571297, NCT02357420; results published previously) were reviewed descriptively. Analysis of covariance assessed treatment effect on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and blood glucose post hoc. Phase 2a and 2b trial durations were, respectively, 4 weeks (relamorelin 10 µg once or twice daily [b.d.] or placebo b.d.) and 12 weeks (relamorelin 10, 30 or 100 µg or placebo b.d.) with 1‐ and 2‐week, single‐blind placebo run‐ins. Results Among 204 phase 2a and 393 phase 2b patients, respectively, 67% and 62% were female, and 88% and 89% had type 2 diabetes. Proportions of patients reporting serious AEs were similar across treatment groups, as were those with ≥1 treatment‐emergent AE (TEAE). TEAE‐related discontinuations were proportionally higher in relamorelin groups than placebo. Of 12 serious TEAEs in phase 2a, none occurred in >1 patient. In phase 2b, five serious TEAEs were reported in >1 patient, and one (100 µg) died (urosepsis), all unrelated to relamorelin. In phase 2b, increased HbA1c and fasting blood glucose levels were dose‐related (P

Up to 60% of patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) report fatigue and 50% meet criteria for clinical insomnia. Recent studies have demonstrated a relationship between poor sleep and next-day IBS symptoms. However, no study to-date has evaluated behavioral therapy to treat poor sleep in IBS. The aim of the current pilot study is to test feasibility of behavioral therapy for insomnia among patients with IBS and poor sleep. This randomized controlled pilot study tested the feasibility of administering brief behavioral therapy for insomnia (BBT-I) to patients with IBS who report poor sleep. Participants were randomized to BBT-I or self-monitoring control. Exploratory analyses evaluated group differences after 4 weeks of treatment. A total of 25 participants were randomized to the study, 13 to BBT-I and 12 to the control group. Three participants dropped out of the treatment group. Satisfaction with treatment was high. At follow-up, there were significant differences between groups in measures of sleep quality and insomnia severity. There were trends toward significance in IBS severity score, with 40% of the BBT-I sample reporting clinically meaningful drop in symptoms compared to 17% of the control group. Similar trends were observed with belly pain and global improvement scores. This pilot study demonstrates feasibility/acceptability of a brief behavioral therapy for patients with IBS and poor sleep. Additionally, this study provides preliminary evidence to suggest that treatment of sleep difficulties in patients with IBS may improve IBS symptom outcomes. Future, larger randomized controlled studies are needed.

OBJECTIVES: Tenapanor is a first-in-class, minimally absorbed, small-molecule inhibitor of the gastrointestinal sodium/hydrogen exchanger isoform 3. This phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of tenapanor 50 mg b.i.d. for the treatment of patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C). METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02621892), patients with IBS-C were randomized to tenapanor 50 mg b.i.d. or placebo b.i.d. for 12 weeks followed by a 4-week randomized withdrawal period. The primary efficacy variable was the proportion of patients who reported a reduction in average weekly worst abdominal pain of ≥30.0% and an increase of ≥1 complete spontaneous bowel movement from baseline, both in the same week, for ≥6 weeks of the 12-week treatment period. RESULTS: Of the 629 randomized patients with IBS-C, 606 (96.3%) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis set (tenapanor: n = 307; placebo: n = 299) and 533 (84.7%) completed the 12-week treatment period. In the intention-to-treat analysis set (mean age 45 years, 81.4% women), a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with tenapanor met the primary endpoint than patients treated with placebo (27.0% vs 18.7%, P = 0.020). Abdominal symptoms and global symptoms of IBS also improved with tenapanor (P < 0.05 vs placebo). Diarrhea was the most commonly reported adverse event, resulting in study drug discontinuation in 6.5% and 0.7% of patients receiving tenapanor and placebo, respectively, during the 12-week treatment period. DISCUSSION: Tenapanor 50 mg b.i.d. improved IBS-C symptoms and was generally well tolerated, offering a potential new treatment option for patients with IBS-C.

Background Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is a novel oral fumarate approved in the USA for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. DRF is converted to monomethyl fumarate, the pharmacologically active metabolite of dimethyl fumarate (DMF). DRF 462 mg and DMF 240 mg produce bioequivalent exposure of monomethyl fumarate and are therefore expected to have similar efficacy/safety profiles; the distinct chemical structure of DRF may contribute to its tolerability profile. Objectives The objective of this study was to compare the gastrointestinal tolerability of DRF and DMF over 5 weeks in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Methods EVOLVE-MS-2 was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, head-to-head, 5-week study evaluating the gastrointestinal tolerability of DRF 462 mg vs DMF 240 mg, administered twice daily in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, using two self-administered gastrointestinal symptom scales: Individual Gastrointestinal Symptom and Impact Scale (IGISIS) and Global Gastrointestinal Symptom and Impact Scale (GGISIS). The primary endpoint was the number of days with an IGISIS intensity score ≥ 2 relative to exposure. Other endpoints included the degree of gastrointestinal symptom severity measured by IGISIS/GGISIS and assessment of safety/tolerability. Results DRF-treated patients experienced a statistically significant reduction (46%) in the number of days with an IGISIS symptom intensity score ≥ 2 compared with DMF-treated patients (rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.54 [0.39–0.75]; p = 0.0003). Lower rates of gastrointestinal adverse events (including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain) were observed with DRF than DMF (34.8% vs 49.0%). Fewer patients discontinued DRF than DMF because of adverse events (1.6% vs 5.6%) and gastrointestinal adverse events (0.8% vs 4.8%). Conclusions DRF demonstrated an improved gastrointestinal tolerability profile compared with DMF, with less severe gastrointestinal events and fewer days of self-assessed gastrointestinal symptoms, fewer gastrointestinal adverse events, and lower discontinuation rates because of gastrointestinal adverse events. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03093324). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40263-020-00700-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) have prominent sex differences in incidence, symptoms, and treatment response that are not well understood. Androgens are steroid hormones present at much higher levels in males than females and could be involved in these differences. In adults with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a FGID that affects 5% to 10% of the population worldwide, we found that free testosterone levels were lower than those in healthy controls and inversely correlated with symptom severity. To determine how this diminished androgen signaling could contribute to bowel dysfunction, we depleted gonadal androgens in adult mice and found that this caused a profound deficit in gastrointestinal transit. Restoring a single androgen hormone was sufficient to rescue this deficit, suggesting that circulating androgens are essential for normal bowel motility in vivo. To determine the site of action, we probed androgen receptor expression in the intestine and discovered, unexpectedly, that a large subset of enteric neurons became androgen-responsive upon puberty. Androgen signaling to these neurons was required for normal colonic motility in adult mice. Taken together, these observations establish a role for gonadal androgens in the neural regulation of bowel function and link altered androgen levels with a common digestive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing evidence that open-label placebo (OLP) may be an efficacious treatment for chronic and functional conditions. However, patient-level predictors of response to OLP have not been clearly identified. The aim of this study is to evaluate psychological predictors of response to OLP and to compare this to double-blind placebo (DBP) and no-pill control (NPC). METHODS. This study is a secondary analysis of data collected in a six-week randomized controlled trial evaluating placebo effects in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The primary outcome was change in IBS severity. Hierarchical linear regression identified predictors of placebo response in general and compared them between those randomized to OLP, DBP, and NPC. Predictor variables included personality traits, generalized anxiety, depression, visceral sensitivity (a measure of symptom-specific anxiety), and pain catastrophizing. RESULTS. 210 participants (mean age 42.3, 73.3% female) were included. Regression models revealed that visceral sensitivity was a predictor of response to OLP and NPC but not DBP. Interestingly, the effects were opposite, with high visceral sensitivity predicting less improvement in NPC and more improvement in OLP. Pain catastrophizing was a negative predictor of response to OLP (i.e. high pain catastrophizing was associated with less improvement in OLP). Neither visceral sensitivity nor pain catastrophizing played a significant role for response to DBP. CONCLUSIONS. IBS participants who score low on the pain catastrophizing scale but high on the visceral sensitivity index seem to benefit particularly from OLP. Our study suggests that different psychological mechanisms may be involved in double-blind and open-label placebo interventions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Depression is a major health issue in the United States and is highly comorbid with gastrointestinal conditions. We collected data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a representative sample of the US population, to study the relationship between depression and bowel habits. METHODS: Using data from the NHANES (2009–2010), we identified 495 depressed and 4709 non-depressed adults who filled out the Bowel Health Questionnaire. Depression was defined according to a validated questionnaire. We used multivariable analysis, controlling for clinical and demographic variables, to evaluate the relationship between mood and bowel habits. RESULTS: In our weighed sample, 24.6% of depressed individuals and 12.6% of non-depressed individuals reported disordered bowel habits. Chronic diarrhea was significantly more prevalent in depressed individuals (15.53%; 95% CI, 11.34%–20.90%) than non-depressed individuals (6.05%; 95% CI, 5.24%–6.98%; P=.0001). Chronic constipation was also more common in depressed individuals (9.10%; 95% CI, 7.02%–11.69%) than non-depressed individuals (6.55%; 95% CI, 5.55%–7.70% CI; P=.003). Mean depression scores in patients with chronic diarrhea (4.9±5.8) and with chronic constipation (4.4±4.93) were significantly higher than mean depression scores for individuals with normal bowel habits (3.2±4.6) (P

PURPOSE Belching is a common condition that frequently overlaps with other functional gastrointestinal disorders. While not associated with any increase in mortality, it is associated with impaired health-related quality of life. Management is challenging, as there are no pharmacologic therapies specifically targeted towards this disorder. This review covers pathogenesis, prevalence, and treatments for this condition, with specific emphasis on the evolving role of behavioral treatments in management. KEY FINDINGS The diagnosis of gastric and supragastric belching can usually be made clinically, without the need for invasive testing. If necessary, multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH testing can provide a more definitive diagnosis and can also be used to estimate the frequency of gastric and supragastric belching episodes, which each have a distinct appearance on impedance tracing. Belching disorders are commonly associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease and functional disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. Supragastric belching is also associated with behavioral disorders like anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Speech therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and diaphragmatic breathing are all interventions that have recently shown promise in the management of this challenging disorder.

Many of the reported adverse events in clinical trials of irritable bowel syndrome are extraintestinal symptoms, which typically are assessed by open-ended questions during the trial and not at baseline. This may lead to misattribution of some pre-existing symptoms as side effects to the treatment.The current study analyzed data from a 6-week clinical trial of irritable bowel syndrome. Participants were randomized to receive double-blind peppermint oil, double-blind placebo, or treatment as usual. Extraintestinal symptoms were assessed at baseline and at the end of the study.This analysis included 173 participants (30 received double-blind peppermint oil, 72 received treatment as usual, and 71 received double-blind placebo). At baseline, each group reported approximately 5 extraintestinal symptoms per participant. The number of symptoms per participant decreased to an average of 3 by the end-of-study visit, and this change was statistically significant in all groups (P.001 for each group). When evaluating individual extraintestinal symptoms, the majority of participants did not report new/worse symptoms. In fact, between the baseline assessment and the final assessment, the average symptom severity decreased significantly in all 3 groups (P.001).Our study suggests that participants with irritable bowel syndrome often experience extraintestinal symptoms at baseline and that these symptoms generally improve in severity over the course of a clinical trial, regardless of the treatment arm. Systematic assessment of extraintestinal symptoms at the beginning of a clinical trial is necessary to determine more definitively whether these symptoms may be considered an adverse event attributable to a study medication.

BACKGROUND Abdominal pain is a bothersome and lifestyle limiting symptom in patients with functional bowel disorders. It is associated with decreased quality of life in affected individuals, as well as significant annual healthcare expenditure. Knowledge of specific factors that predict improvement in abdominal pain in those with functional bowel disorders is thus far limited. METHODS Consecutive patients presenting for outpatient care at a major academic medical center between October 2017 and March 2020 completed an electronic symptom survey prior to initial clinic visit, and again after 3 months. The Rome IV questionnaires for functional dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, functional constipation, and functional diarrhea were all included. Additionally, all subjects completed the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety, Depression, and sleep disturbance questionnaires. Patients with a diagnosis of a Rome IV functional gastrointestinal disorder without any organic cause for symptoms were identified based on both chart review as well as survey response data. Univariable and multivariable analysis was used to assess predictors of improved abdominal pain after 3 months. KEY RESULTS 180 patients with a mean age of 45.3 years were included in the final analysis. 78.3% of patients were female, and 77.2% met Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome. On multivariable analysis, improvement in constipation and diarrhea were both independent predictors of improved abdominal pain after 3 months. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES Improvement in constipation and diarrhea both predicted improvement in abdominal pain, suggesting that addressing these factors is central to the management of abdominal pain in functional gastrointestinal disorders.

Although the prevalence of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) is increasing, there is evidence that eosinophilic gastritis and/or duodenitis (EG/EoD) are underdiagnosed. Patients with EG/EoD often present with chronic, non-specific gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, similar to patients with functional GI disorders. We hypothesized that systematic evaluation, including multiple esophageal, gastric and duodenal biopsies, of patients with chronic GI symptoms might reveal a high rate of gastroduodenal eosinophila, with or without eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Methods We performed a prospective multi-center study of patients with non-specific GI symptoms for ≥6 months, from 20 sites. Patients completed a questionnaire assessing abdominal pain, abdominal cramping, early satiety, bloating, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and loss of appetite. Those with daily average symptom severity scores ≥3/10 for any single symptom underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with collection of 4 esophageal (EoE), 8 gastric, and 4 duodenal biopsies, analyzed by central pathologists. Histologic criteria for EoE was ≥15eos/hpf in ≥1 esophageal site and for EG/EoD was peak eosinophil counts ≥30/hpf in ≥5 gastric hpfs and/or 3 duodenal hpfs—criteria used in randomized trials. Results Of 556 patients screened, 405 (73%) met symptom criteria and underwent EGD; 181 patients (45%, mean age 45, 73% female) who underwent EGD met the histologic criteria for EG/EoD, and of these, 7% also had EoE diagnosed. Overall 2% met histologic criteria for EoE alone. Of patients who met the histologic criteria for EG/EoD, 93% were previously diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or functional dyspepsia (FD) (Figure 1). The average duration of GI symptoms in the screened population as well as those that met histologic criteria for EG/EoD was 11 years. Conclusion Forty-five percent of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms who underwent EGD met histologic criteria for EG/EoD. Over 90% of these patients had previously been diagnosed with GERD, IBS, and/or FD, and had minimal overlap with EoE. EGD with systematic gastroduodenal biopsies, and intentional evaluation for tissue eosinophilia, should be performed in patients with chronic GI symptoms. Accurate diagnosis of EG/EoD is required for appropriate, targeted treatment and improved outcomes of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms.

BACKGROUND Abdominal bloating is common in functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID). To better characterize this patient population, we evaluated clinical and psychological characteristics of bloating and analyzed their differences by bloating severity. METHODS Patients with FGIDs evaluated at a single academic outpatient referral gastroenterology clinic were surveyed. Bloating severity was classified as minimal, moderate or severe. Symptom-specific questionnaires were used to evaluate bowel habits, abdominal bloating, depression, anxiety, somatization and sleep disturbance. Associations between bloating severity, clinical characteristics and FGID subtypes were analyzed in univariate and multivariate modeling. KEY RESULTS Of 612 FGID patients included (78% female, mean age of 44 ± 16.5 years), bloating was reported as minimal in 231(37.8%), moderate in 217(35.4%), or severe in 164(26.8%). Patients with severe bloating were more likely to be female, younger, and have co-existing functional dyspepsia than those with minimal bloating (p

Irritable bowel syndrome-diarrhoea (IBS-D) and IBS-mixed stool pattern (IBS-M) are disorders of gut-brain interaction characterised by abdominal pain associated with diarrhoea or both diarrhoea and constipation respectively. The pathophysiology of IBS-D/M is multifactorial and not completely understood; thus, treatment is aimed at multiple mechanisms such as altering gut microbiota, visceral hypersensitivity, intestinal permeability, gut-brain interaction and psychological strategies.The goal of this article was to provide an up-to-date review of the current evidence for both non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options in IBS-D and IBS-M. Future treatments for IBS-D and IBS-M will also be discussed.Medline and Embase database searches (through April 30 2021) to identify clinical studies in subjects with IBS-D in which dietary modification, alternative treatments (probiotics, acupuncture, exercise) as well as FDA-approved medications were used.Dietary modification is often the first line of therapy. Furthermore, lifestyle treatments include complementary alternative medications (CAM), probiotics and peppermint oil are useful adjuncts but have not specifically been described in IBS-D/M. Evidence strongly supports psychotherapy in the treatment of IBS. Beyond over-the counter anti-diarrhoeals, anti-spasmodics and anti-depressants, pharmacological treatment now includes treating for bile acid malabsorption and the FDA-approved medications rifaximin, eluxadoline and alosetron.The treatment of IBS-D/M ideally involves a multidisciplinary approach of primary care, gastroenterologist and psychologist. Treatment often involves both non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapies. Future therapies may include faecal microbial transplant, Crofelemer and serotonin antagonists, but further studies are needed.

Advances in bioinformatics have facilitated investigation of the role of gut microbiota in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This article describes the evidence from epidemiologic and clinical observational studies highlighting the link between IBS and gut microbiome by investigating postinfection IBS, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and microbial dysbiosis. It highlights the effects of gut microbiota on mechanisms implicated in the pathophysiology of IBS, including gut-brain axis, visceral hypersensitivity, motility, epithelial barrier, and immune activation. In addition, it summarizes the current evidence on microbiome-guided therapies in IBS, including probiotics, antibiotics, diet, and fecal microbiota transplant.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common and clinically heterogeneous gastrointestinal disorder that can be divided into 4 subtypes: IBS with constipation (IBS-C), IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), IBS with mixed bowel habits, and unclassified IBS. IBS decreases quality of life1 and imposes a substantial economic burden on the healthcare system.2 To develop efficient approaches to address the individual needs of IBS patients while minimizing healthcare resource overutilization, it is important to identify the factors that drive patients to seek care, to clarify the burden associated with distinct IBS subtypes, and to be aware of the resources from which IBS patients seek health-related information. We aimed to compare healthcare and information seeking between individuals with IBS-C and IBS-D.

Background Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is increasingly recognized as an exacerbating or causal factor in several respiratory diseases. There is a high prevalence of GER in infants with airway malacia. However, such data are lacking in adults. Methods This retrospective study was conducted to determine the relationship between GER and excessive central airway collapse (ECAC). The study included consecutive patients with ECAC referred to the Complex Airway Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center who underwent esophageal pH testing for GER between July 2014 and June 2018. Results Sixty-three of 139 patients with ECAC (45.3%) had documented GER as shown by an abnormal esophageal pH test result. The mean DeMeester score was 32.2, with a symptom association probability of 39.7% of GER-positive patients. Twenty-nine of 63 patients (46%) with GER reported improvement in respiratory symptoms following maximal medical therapy or antireflux surgery without requiring further treatment for ECAC. Conclusions GER is prevalent among patients with ECAC, and aggressive reflux treatment should be considered in these patients prior to considering invasive airway procedures or surgery.