American College of Gastroenterology monograph on the management of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation.

Abstract

Translate Article

Take Notes

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic idiopathic constipation ((CIC) also referred to as functional constipation) are two of the most common functional gastrointestinal disorders worldwide. IBS is a global problem, with anywhere from 5 to 15% of the general population experiencing symptoms that would satisfy a definition of IBS (1,2). In a systematic review on the global prevalence of IBS, Lovell and Ford (1) documented a pooled prevalence of 11% with all regions of the world suffering from this disorder at similar rates. Given its prevalence, the frequency of symptoms, and their associated debility for many patients and the fact that IBS typically occurs in younger adulthood, an important period for furthering education, embarking on careers, and/or raising families, the socioeconomic impact of IBS is considerable. These indirect medical costs are frequently compounded by the direct medical costs related to additional medical tests and the use of various medical and nonmedical remedies that may have limited impact. CIC is equally common; in another systematic review, Suares and Ford (3) reported a pooled prevalence of 14%, and also noted that constipation was more common in females, in older subjects, and those of lower socioeconomic status (3). Chronic constipation has also been linked to impaired quality of life (4), most notably among the elderly (5). Neither IBS nor CIC are associated with abnormal radiologic or endoscopic abnormalities, nor are they associated with a reliable biomarker; diagnosis currently rests entirely, therefore, on clinical grounds. Although a number of clinical definitions of both IBS and CIC have been proposed, the criteria developed through the Rome process, currently in its third iteration, have been those most widely employed in clinical trials and, therefore, most relevant to any review of the literature on the management of these disorders. According to Rome III, IBS is defined on the basis of the presence of: Recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort at least 3 days/month in the past 3 months associated with two or more of the following: Improvement with defecation Onset associated with a change in frequency of stool Onset associated with a change in form (appearance) of stool These criteria should be fulfilled for the past 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months before diagnosis (6). Rome III defines functional constipation as: the presence of two or more of the following: Straining during at least 25% of defecations Lumpy or hard stools in at least 25% of defecations Sensation of incomplete evacuation for at least 25% of defecations Sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockage for at least 25% of defecations Manual maneuvers to facilitate at least 25% of defecations (e.g., digital evacuation, support of the pelvic floor) Fewer than three defecations per week Furthermore, loose stools are rarely present without the use of laxatives and there are insufficient criteria for IBS. Again, these criteria should be fulfilled for the past 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months before diagnosis (6). In Rome III, IBS is subtyped according to predominant bowel habit as IBS with constipation (IBS-C), IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), mixed type (IBS-M), and unclassified (IBS-U). The definition of bowel habit type is, in turn, based on the patient's description of stool form by referring to the Bristol Stool Scale (7). The recognition that IBS sufferers segregate into subtypes according to predominant bowel habit, together with research findings suggesting that IBS-C and IBS-D may be pathophysiologically distinct entities (8,9,10), led to the development of therapies specifically directed at each of these subtypes. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that symptoms may not be stable over a lifetime and individuals may exhibit one IBS subtype during a period, and then a different IBS subtype during another period in their lives. However, although there is general awareness of the Rome criteria, they are infrequently employed in the assessment of IBS and CIC in clinical practice (11). To provide more "clinician friendly" definitions, as well as to permit inclusion of studies that predated the Rome process, American College of Gastroenterology Task Forces suggested the following definitions in prior systematic reviews: IBS is defined by: abdominal discomfort associated with altered bowel habits (12). Constipation is defined as: a symptom-based disorder defined as unsatisfactory defecation and is characterized by infrequent stools, difficult stool passage, or both. Difficult stool passage includes straining, a sense of difficulty passing stool, incomplete evacuation, hard/lumpy stools, prolonged time to stool, or need for manual maneuvers to pass stool. CIC is defined as the presence of these symptoms for at least 3 months (13). It is important to note that the Rome III criteria state that individuals with chronic constipation do not fulfill criteria for IBS, with pain or discomfort being a major determinant in the latter. In practice, a clear separation between CIC and IBS with constipation may be challenging and studies have shown, not only considerable overlap between these entities (14,15,16), but also a significant tendency for patients to migrate between these diagnoses over time (15). It is appropriate therefore that in this update of prior American College of Gastroenterology monographs on IBS and CIC, these entities be addressed in the same exercise (12,13,17). The goal of this exercise, therefore, was to update the most recent systematic reviews commissioned by the American College of Gastroenterology on IBS from 2009 (17) and CIC from 2005 (13). METHODS We have conducted a series of systematic reviews on the efficacy of therapy in IBS and CIC. There have been several systematic reviews of therapy for IBS and CIC published in the past 5 years (18,19,20,21,22). There have been considerable data published in the intervening time, and hence we have, therefore, updated all these systematic reviews of IBS and CIC and synthesized the data, including the information from new trials, where appropriate. The primary objective of this exercise was to assess the efficacy of available therapies in treating IBS and CIC compared with placebo or no treatment. The secondary objectives included assessing the efficacy of available therapies in treating IBS according to predominant stool pattern reported (IBS with constipation, IBS with diarrhea, and mixed IBS), as well as assessing adverse events with therapies for both IBS and CIC. Systematic review methodology We evaluated manuscripts that studied adults (aged >16 years) using any definition of IBS or CIC. For IBS, this included a clinician-defined diagnosis, the Manning criteria (23), the Kruis score (24), or Rome I (25), II (26), or III (6) criteria. For CIC, this included symptoms diagnosed by any of the Rome criteria (6,25,26), as well as a clinician-defined diagnosis. We included only parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing active intervention with either placebo or no therapy. Crossover trials were eligible for inclusion, provided extractable data were provided at the end of the first treatment period, before crossover. For IBS, the following treatments were considered: Diet and dietary manipulation Fiber Interventions that modify the microbiota: probiotics, prebiotics, antibiotics Antispasmodics Peppermint oil Loperamide Antidepressants Psychological therapies, including hypnotherapy Serotonergic agents Prosecretory agents Polyethylene glycol For CIC, the following were considered: Fiber Osmotic and stimulant laxatives 5-HT4 agonists Prosecretory agents Biofeedback Bile acid transporter inhibitors Probiotics Subjects needed to be followed up for at least 1 week. To be eligible, trials needed to include one or more of the following outcome measures: Global assessment of improvement in IBS or CIC symptoms Improvement in abdominal pain for IBS Global IBS symptom or abdominal pain scores for IBS Mean number of stools per week during therapy for CIC Search strategy for identification of studies MEDLINE (1946 to October 2013), EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1947 to October 2013), and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched. Studies on IBS were identified with the terms irritable bowel syndrome and functional diseases, colon (both as medical subject headings (MeSH) and free text terms), and IBS, spastic colon, irritable colon, and functional adj5 bowel (as free text terms). For RCTs of dietary manipulation, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: diet, fat-restricted, diet, protein-restricted, diet, carbohydrate-restricted, diet, gluten-free, diet, macrobiotic, diet, vegetarian, diet, Mediterranean, diet fads, gluten, fructose, lactose intolerance, or lactose (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: FODMAP$, glutens, food adj5 intolerance, food allergy, or food hypersensitivity. For RCTs of fiber, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: dietary fiber, cereals, psyllium, methylcellulose, sterculia, karaya gum, parasympatholytics, hyoscyamine, scopolamine, trimebutine, muscarinic antagonists, or butylscopolammonium bromide (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: bulking agent, psyllium fiber, fiber, husk, bran, ispaghula, wheat bran, calcium polycarbophil, spasmolytics, spasmolytic agents, antispasmodics, mebeverine, alverine, pinaverium bromide, otilonium bromide, cimetropium bromide, hyoscine butyl bromide, butylscopolamine, peppermint oil, or colpermin. For RCTs of probiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: Saccharomyces, Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Escherichia coli, or probiotics (both as MeSH and free text terms). For RCTs of prebiotics and synbiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the term: prebiotic (both MeSH and free text terms) or synbiotic (both MeSH and free text terms). For RCTs of antibiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: anti-bacterial agents, penicillins, cephalosporins, rifamycins, quinolones, nitroimidazoles, tetracycline, doxycycline, amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, or tinidazole (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: antibiotic or rifamixin. For RCTs of loperamide, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: loperamide or antidiarrheals (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: imodium or lopex. For RCTs of antidepressants and psychological therapies, including hypnotherapy, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: psychotropic drugs, antidepressive agents, antidepressive agents (tricyclic), desipramine, imipramine, trimipramine, doxepin, dothiepin, nortriptyline, amitriptyline, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, paroxetine, sertraline, fluoxetine, citalopram, venlafaxine, cognitive therapy, psychotherapy, behavior therapy, relaxation techniques, or hypnosis (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnotherapy. For RCTs of serotonergic agents, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: serotonin antagonists, serotonin agonists, cisapride, receptors (serotonin, 5-HT3), or receptors (serotonin, 5-HT4) (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: 5-HT3, 5-HT4, alosetron, cilansetron, ramosetron, prucalopride, mosapride, or renzapride. For RCTs of pro-secretory agents, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the following free text terms: linaclotide or lubiprostone. For RCTs of polyethylene glycol (PEG), these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the term polyethylene glycol (both as a MeSH and free text term). Studies on CIC were identified with the terms constipation or gastrointestinal transit (both as MeSH and free text terms), or functional constipation, idiopathic constipation, chronic constipation, or slow transit (as free text terms). For the search involving biofeedback, the free text terms dyssynergia, pelvic floor dysfunction, anismus, and outlet obstruction were also added. For RCTs of fiber, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: dietary fiber, cellulose, plant extracts, psyllium, cereals, plantago, or methylcellulose (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: fiber, soluble fiber, insoluble fiber, bran, ispaghula, metamucil, fybogel, or ispaghula. For RCTs of osmotic and stimulant laxatives, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: laxatives, cathartics, anthraquinones, phenolphthaleins, indoles, phenols, lactulose, polyethylene glycol, senna plant, senna extract, bisacodyl, phosphates, dioctyl sulfosuccinic acid, magnesium, magnesium hydroxide, sorbitol, poloxamer (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: sodium picosulphate, docusate, milk of magnesia, danthron, senna, and poloxalkol. For RCTs of 5-HT4 agonists, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: serotonin agonists, receptors, or serotonin, 5-HT4 (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: prucalopride, velusetrag, or naronapride. For RCTs of pro-secretory agents, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the following free text terms: lubiprostone or linaclotide. For RCTs of biofeedback, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the MESH terms biofeedback and psychology and the following free text terms: biofeedback or neuromuscular training. For RCTs of bile acid transporter inhibitors, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the following free text terms: bile acid transporter, elobixibat, or A3309. For RCTs of probiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: Saccharomyces, Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, E. coli, or probiotics (both as MeSH and free text terms). For RCTs of prebiotics and synbiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the term: prebiotic (both MESH and free text terms) or synbiotic (both MESH and free text terms). The search was limited to humans. No restrictions were applied with regard to language of publication. A recursive search of the bibliography of relevant articles was also conducted. DDW (Digestive Diseases Week) and UEGW (United European Gastroenterology Week) abstract books were hand searched between 2000 and 2013. Authors of trial reports that did not give enough detail for adequate data extraction were contacted and asked to contribute full data sets. Experts in the field were contacted for leads on unpublished studies. Trials were assessed for risk of bias according to the methods described in the Cochrane handbook [27] using the following characteristics: method used to generate the randomization schedule, method used to conceal treatment allocation, implementation of masking, completeness of follow-up, and conduct of an intention-to-treat analysis. Eligibility, quality, and outcome data were extracted by the lead reviewer (Alexander Ford) and by a masked second reviewer (Paul Moayyedi) on to specially developed forms. Any discrepancy was resolved by discussion between the two reviewers in order to reach a consensus. Data were extracted as intention-to-treat analyses, where all dropouts were assumed to be treatment failures, wherever trial reporting allowed this. Data synthesis For IBS, whenever possible, any improvement of global IBS symptoms as a binary outcome was taken as the primary outcome measure. If this was not available, improvement in abdominal pain was used. For CIC, any improvement of global CIC symptoms as a binary outcome was taken as the primary outcome measure. The impact of interventions was expressed as a relative risk (RR) of IBS or CIC symptoms not improving, together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). If there were sufficient data, RRs were combined using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model (28) to give a more conservative estimate of the efficacy of individual IBS therapies. For continuous data, such as global IBS symptom scores or individual IBS symptom scores, a standardized mean difference, with 95% CIs, was calculated. It should be noted that some treatments may be beneficial in IBS or CIC because of the effects on outcomes other than global symptoms or abdominal pain, but this was not evaluated and was outside of the scope of this review. Tests of heterogeneity were reported (29). When the test of heterogeneity was significant (P<0.10 and/or I2>25%), the reasons for this were explored by evaluating differences in study population, study design, or study end points in subgroup analyses. Publication bias or other causes of small study effects were evaluated using tests for funnel plot asymmetry (30), where sufficient studies were identified (31). The number needed to treat (NNT), which is the number of patients who would need to receive active therapy, over and above the control therapy, for one to experience an improvement in symptoms, and the number needed to harm (NNH), which is the number of patients who would need to receive active therapy, over and above the control therapy, for one to experience an adverse event were calculated as the inverse of the risk difference from the meta-analysis and checked using the formula: NNT = 100 / RRR × BR, where BR is baseline risk and RRR is relative risk reduction. Methodology for assessing levels of evidence and grading recommendations We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system for grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation for each medical intervention (32). The system has been widely used in evidence-based guidelines and is endorsed by all major gastrointestinal societies (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org). The quality of the evidence is based on the study design, as well as the extent of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias that exists for the evidence supporting the intervention (33). Quality of evidence is described as high to very low, depending on the extent to which further evidence would change the estimate of treatment effect (Box 1). The grading scheme also classifies recommendations as strong or weak, according to the quality of the evidence, applicability to all patient groups, balance of benefits and risks, patient preferences, and cost. With this graded recommendation, the clinician receives guidance about whether or not recommendations should be applied to most patients, and whether or not recommendations are likely to change in the future after production of new evidence. "Strong" recommendations represent a "recommendation that can apply to most patients in most circumstances and further evidence is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of treatment effect." The summary of the evidence for IBS is presented in Table 1, the reasons for the decision on the quality of that evidence in Table 2, and the reasons for the strength of recommendation in Table 3. Similarly, the summary of the evidence for CIC is presented in Table 4, the reasons for the decision on quality of the evidence in Table 5, and the reasons for the strength of recommendation in Table 6.Box 1.: Interpretation of the grading of the quality of evidenceTable 1: Summary of results of monograph on interventions for IBSTable 2: Reasons for quality of evidence of assessment for IBS data according to GRADE criteriaTable 2: Continued.Table 3: Reasons for strength of recommendation for IBS therapies according to GRADE criteriaTable 4: Summary of results of monograph on interventions for CICTable 5: Reasons for quality of evidence of assessment of data on CIC according to GRADE criteriaTable 6: Reasons for strength of recommendation for treatments of CIC according to GRADE criteriaRESULTS Irritable bowel syndrome 1. Diet and dietary manipulation in IBS (a) Role of diet in IBS: Although food intake is one of the most common precipitants of symptoms in IBS (34), responses to food and with of the diet have not typically in the of a on their IBS sufferers have their to this or guidance from dietary IBS patients that they have an to although food are in IBS although the prevalence of food in societies is between 1 and in of gastrointestinal patients that that their symptoms food or food IBS symptoms to represent food intolerance, although only of patients can the food in a on their with and a of objective evidence to a studies have that a of IBS patients dietary to an extent that may their Role of dietary manipulation in may symptoms in individual IBS Quality of very We identified RCTs that evaluated dietary intervention in IBS to data of relevant symptom data and an intervention week three RCTs involving patients The first of these addressed the impact of in IBS. In a patients with IBS were randomized to either on a diet or to receive of on of an In the reported that their symptoms were not controlled as compared with in the placebo symptom scores for abdominal pain, with stool and were in those who a The second of these studies the of food or as not by but by In a parallel-group IBS patients were randomized to either an diet based on the presence of to various or a were followed for and symptoms assessed using a global impact score and the IBS with in the diet in the diet intervention noted a significant improvement in The reported in those with high to their The third study the of and IBS patients were randomized to a diet or their diet for those randomized to the diet, reported adequate control of their symptoms compared with of the diet Stool did not between stool frequency was in the diet A significant of this study was the of the dietary the of dietary in the of symptoms, or in the of IBS, is being To two and have been addressed in clinical trials, although it is that other (e.g., of and with the may also be relevant to the effects of food or food the that any of the of an diet or of a food in IBS the data provide limited guidance on the of diet in the management of IBS. and but their in the management of IBS need to be Fiber in IBS Fiber symptom in IBS. Quality of but not bran, symptom in IBS. Quality of intake of dietary is frequently to bowel for IBS, for However, insoluble frequently and abdominal In our prior systematic review we identified two additional studies for a of RCTs involving but trials did not IBS by subtype and only two to IBS-C In the study to patients, of were IBS-C and were were randomized to one of three of the soluble psyllium, of the insoluble bran, or of a placebo for the first a of patients psyllium, but not bran, reported adequate symptom for at least compared with placebo psyllium 95% was more than placebo during the third of treatment only 3 months of symptom in the psyllium was by points compared with points in the placebo and points in the No differences were with to quality of was most common in the most because of in IBS. Data on adverse events were only provided by trials These trials evaluated patients, but as of adverse events were small in 5 of the trials, of data was not A of of patients reported adverse events compared with of in the placebo Although its use in the management of IBS is time the status of fiber, in in IBS, is from may symptoms and provide soluble and psyllium, in provide in IBS. These effects to benefits in terms of of 3. Interventions that modify the microbiota: probiotics, prebiotics, and antibiotics The that the be relevant to IBS first from the that a although of individuals who an of on to IBS IBS Although has been linked to and and in the have been described in IBS, the of the to or other symptoms in IBS, is although both small and and in the have also been linked to IBS the of to IBS and findings in to the in patient probiotics, and have been used for on an basis by IBS they have only been to in clinical The of studies in IBS challenging as studies have employed different and in various patient and in Although the suggested that more than of all IBS sufferers studies have, in to such a high prevalence of in IBS These results may to to the test that may provide an of the this provided a for assessing antibiotics in IBS. a has efficacy in clinical trials in and although significant were over placebo in global IBS symptoms as well as in it is important to note that tests for were not in these trials, the of of in IBS (a) and in IBS: There is insufficient evidence to prebiotics or in IBS. Quality of very Probiotics in as a probiotics global symptoms, and in IBS.