Mapping the Evidence on IgG-Based Elimination Diets for the Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Adults: A Systematic Scoping Review.

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.

Covering the Cover

Effects of antidepressants in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and comorbid depression

Purpose: Symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have been reported to affect females 3 to 20 times more frequently than males. Clinical studies have demonstrated hormone-related increases in the severity of IBS symptoms regardless of predominant bowel pattern. Females with IBS often experience more severe gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (eg, bloating, abdominal discomfort, diarrhea) during the premenstrual phase of the menstrual cycle (ie, 1 to 3 days before menstruation). In the cases described in this series, the nonsystemic antibiotic rifaximin was administered for the treatment of worsened IBS symptoms of bloating, abdominal discomfort, or diarrhea associated with premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Methods: This case series details 3 female patients with IBS symptoms that worsened during PMS. Results:Patient 1. A 23-year-old female with a history of constipation-predominant IBS complained of worsened abdominal pain, gas, and bloating during PMS. The patient received rifaximin 200 mg three times daily (t.i.d.) for 3 days at the onset of PMS-associated exacerbations in IBS symptoms (ie, 3 days before menstruation). At a follow-up visit 9 weeks later, the patient reported improvement in PMS-associated IBS symptoms after daily rifaximin treatment during the premenstrual phase of 2 menstrual cycles. Patient 2. A 28-year-old female with a history of diarrhea-predominant IBS complained of worsened symptoms of abdominal gas, cramping, bloating, and diarrhea during PMS. The patient received rifaximin 200 mg t.i.d. for 3 days at the onset of PMS-associated IBS symptoms. At a follow-up visit 4 months later, the patient reported substantial improvement in IBS symptoms after repeated rifaximin treatment during the premenstrual phase of 3 menstrual cycles. Improvement in PMS-associated IBS symptoms was maintained such that the patient did not require rifaximin treatment during the subsequent premenstrual phase of the fourth menstrual cycle after initiating rifaximin therapy. Patient 3. A 34-year-old female with a history of chronic diarrhea complained of bloating, abdominal pain, and fecal incontinence during PMS. The patient received rifaximin 200 mg t.i.d. for 3 days at the onset of PMS-associated GI symptoms. At a follow-up visit 8 weeks later, the patient reported complete resolution of diarrhea after rifaximin treatment during the premenstrual phase of 2 menstrual cycles. Conclusion: In these patients, treatment with rifaximin 600 mg/d for 1 to 3 days during the premenstrual phase of multiple menstrual cycles effectively alleviated symptoms of abdominal pain, gas, bloating, or diarrhea. Rifaximin may prove beneficial for the treatment of cyclical GI symptoms associated with PMS in some patients.

Probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: Has the time arrived?

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Post-Infection Irritable Bowel Syndrome: What Lies Ahead for Gastroenterologists

Dyspepsia and Irritable Bowel Syndrome After a Salmonella Gastroenteritis Outbreak: One-Year Follow-up Cohort Study

Dietary therapies have revolutionised treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, response rates to the diet with the highest evidence of efficacy (the low FODMAP diet) remain at 50-75%, suggesting other potential drivers of symptom onset. A low food chemical elimination-rechallenge diet targeting bioactive food chemicals (including salicylates, amines, glutamate and other additives), is commonly applied in Australia in patients exhibiting both gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal symptoms. One key food chemical, salicylate, has been shown to elicit symptoms in IBS patients with aspirin-sensitivity(1), and 77% of IBS patients have reported amine-rich foods trigger symptoms(2). However, data supporting the full low chemical diet is scant, and safety concerns exist due to its restrictive nature potentially causing nutritional deficiencies and disordered eating. This cross-sectional survey aimed to evaluate the frequency of co-existing extra-intestinal symptoms, as well as explore patient perceptions and use of the low chemical diet in those with IBS and healthy controls. Participants with IBS (IBS-Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS) &gt;75), and healthy controls (not meeting Rome IV and IBS-SSS ≤75) were recruited via online advertisement. Validated questionnaires were used to assess gastrointestinal symptoms (IBS-SSS), extraintestinal symptoms (extended PHQ-12), nutrient (Comprehensive Nutritional Assessment Tool) and food additive intake (IBD-Food additive questionnaire). Additional questionnaires assessed use of dietary therapies with specific focus on food chemicals. Data was analysed using independent samples t-test and chi-square test. 204 IBS (Total IBS-SSS, 277 ± 79) and 22 healthy controls (36 ± 28, p&lt;0.01) completed the study. IBS participants were more likely to report extra-intestinal symptoms including headaches (p&lt;0.01), migraines (p = 0.03), fatigue (p&lt;0.01), difficulty sleeping (p = 0.03), rhinitis (p = 0.02), urticaria (p = 0.04) and mood disturbance (p&lt;0.01). IBS participants were more likely to report at least one food chemical as a trigger for gastrointestinal (38% vs 13%, p = 0.03) and/or extra-intestinal (30% vs 9%, p = 0.04) symptoms. In the IBS group, the most common suspected dietary triggers for gastrointestinal symptoms were salicylates (19%) followed by MSG (17%) and artificial colours (14%); while for extra-intestinal symptoms, MSG (15%) was most common, followed by amines (14%), and sulphites (12%). There was no significant difference in consumption of ultra-processed, additive containing foods. Twenty-one (10%) IBS participants were following a low chemical diet, with dietary advice provided by a dietitian (n = 13), general practitioner (n = 6), gastroenterologist (n = 6), naturopath (n = 3), family/friend (n = 4) and/or the diet was self-initiated (n = 7). Fourteen of the 21 (67%) reported following both a low food chemical and low FODMAP diet. Patients with IBS are more likely to report extra-intestinal symptoms compared to healthy controls. Despite limited evidence, a low food chemical diet is utilised to manage both gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal symptoms. Of concern, many respondents following a low food chemical diet reported also following a low FODMAP diet, which may have implications for nutritional adequacy.

Self-Administered Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Moderate to Severe Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Clinical Efficacy, Tolerability, Feasibility

<h3>Introduction</h3> IBS is a common, chronic condition, incurring significant financial and time costs in both primary care and gastroenterology services. Symptoms may persist despite initial dietary, lifestyle and pharmacological interventions prompting referral for specialist gastroenterology input and investigation. Use of FC can exclude differential diagnoses such as inflammatory bowel disease without luminal investigation. Up to 75% of patients with IBS report symptomatic benefits with strict adherence to a low FODMAP diet,¹ but this requires expert dietetic support. A pathway was indicated to facilitate direct access from primary care to specialist dietetic services for patients who do not require gastroenterologist review. <h3>Methods</h3> Patients aged 16–45 with IBS symptoms according to Rome Criteria are eligible for this care pathway (Figure 1). In patients with persisting symptoms despite interventions as per NICE-guidance,² FC informs further management. Patients with FC &lt; 150 µg/g faeces can be referred to the dietetic-led refractory IBS service. This includes comprehensive symptom assessment, supported implementation of dietary exclusions with a low FODMAP diet followed by dietary re-challenge to identify triggers and optimise long-term IBS management. Patients with no symptomatic improvement following dietary manipulation are directly referred for gastroenterology review. Patients with an intermediate FC (51–149 µg/g faeces) undergo repeat FC after 3 months. Escalation of FC level prompts further investigation and consultant review. A consultant and specialist dietitian led education program was provided to regional GPs on practical implementation of the pathway. <h3>Results</h3> The pathway and IBS service will be audited prospectively based on clinical outcomes, FC use in primary care and impact on referral to gastroenterology and endoscopy services. <h3>Conclusion</h3> A comprehensive IBS care pathway and direct access service is now in place in Gloucestershire. Improvements to quality of care for IBS patients through provision of timely, appropriate and successful treatment options and prevention of unnecessary referral to gastroenterology and endoscopy services will be monitored. <h3>References</h3> 1 Halmos, <i>et al</i>. A diet low in FODMAPs reduces symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. <i>Gastroenterology</i> 2014;<b>146</b>:67–75 2 NICE. <i>Irritable bowel syndrome in adults: Diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome in primary care. NICE Guidance CG61</i> February 2008. Guideline addendum 2015. <h3>Disclosure of Interest</h3> None Declared

Gut-directed hypnotherapy is an effective treatment option for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, clinical observations suggest that patient satisfaction with hypnotherapy is not always associated with improvement in IBS symptoms. We evaluated 83 patients with IBS treated with gut-directed hypnotherapy (1 h week(-1), 12 weeks). After the treatment period, patients reported their satisfaction with the treatment (ranging from 1 = not at all satisfied, to 5 = very satisfied) and completed questionnaires to assess IBS symptom severity, quality of life, cognitive function, sense of coherence, depression, and anxiety before and after treatment. After hypnotherapy improved IBS symptom severity, quality of life, cognitive function, and anxiety were seen. Thirty patients (36%) were very satisfied with the treatment and 57 (69%) patients scored 4 or 5 on the patient satisfaction scale. Patient satisfaction was associated with less severe IBS symptoms and better quality of life after the treatment. In a multiple linear regression analysis, only the quality of life domain sexual relations was independently associated with patient satisfaction after hypnotherapy, explaining 22% of the variance. Using 25% reduction of IBS symptom severity to define an IBS symptom responder, 52% of the responders were very satisfied with hypnotherapy, but this was also true for 31% in the non-responder group. Patient satisfaction with gut-directed hypnotherapy in IBS is associated with improvement of quality of life and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. However, other factors unrelated to GI symptoms also seems to be of importance for patient satisfaction, as a substantial proportion of patients without GI symptom improvement were also very satisfied with this treatment option.

The first British Dietetic Association (BDA) guidelines for the dietary management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in adults were published in 2012. Subsequently, there has been a wealth of new research. The aim of this work was to systematically review the evidence for the role of diet in the management of IBS and to update the guidelines. Twelve questions relating to diet and IBS were defined based on review of the previous guideline questions, current evidence and clinical practice. Chosen topics were on healthy eating and lifestyle (alcohol, caffeine, spicy food, elimination diets, fat and fluid intakes and dietary habits), milk and dairy, dietary fibre, fermentable carbohydrates, gluten, probiotics and elimination diets/food hypersensitivity. Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science up to October 2015. Studies were assessed independently in duplicate using risk of bias tools specific to each included study based on inclusion and exclusion criteria for each question. National Health and Medical Research Council grading evidence levels were used to develop evidence statements and recommendations, in accordance with Practice-based Evidence in Nutrition Global protocol used by the BDA. Eighty-six studies were critically appraised to generate 46 evidence statements, 15 clinical recommendations and four research recommendations. The IBS dietary algorithm was simplified to first-line (healthy eating, provided by any healthcare professional) and second-line [low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) to be provided by dietitian] dietary advice. These guidelines provide updated comprehensive evidence-based details to achieve the successful dietary management of IBS in adults.

Unnecessary abdominal and back surgery in irritable bowel syndrome: time to stem the flood now?

To evaluate the efficacy of quadruple-coated probiotics (gQlab) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), focusing on sex differences and IBS subtypes. One hundred and nine Rome III-diagnosed IBS patients were randomized into either a gQlab or placebo group and received either gQlab or a placebo for 4 weeks. Participants replied to questionnaires assessing compliance, symptoms, and safety. Fecal samples were collected at 0 and 4 weeks to measure the probiotic levels using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and to perform metagenomic analysis via 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing. The primary endpoint was the change in the overall IBS symptoms after 4 weeks of treatment. Ninety-two subjects (47 and 45 in the gQlab and placebo groups, respectively) completed the study protocol. At week 4, there was a higher relief of the overall IBS symptoms in the gQlab group (P = 0.005). The overall IBS symptom improvement was statistically significant (P = 0.017) in female patients of the gQlab group compared with the placebo group. Among the IBS subtypes, constipation-predominant IBS patients showed significant relief of the overall IBS symptoms (P = 0.002). At week 4, the fecal microbiome profiles between the 2 groups did not differ, but the qPCR levels of Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus helveticus, Bifidobacterium longum, and Bifidobacterium breve were increased in the gQlab group (P < 0.05 by repeated measures ANOVA). gQlab administration can improve the overall IBS symptoms, especially in female and constipation-predominant IBS patients. Further research is necessary to clarify the pathophysiology behind sex-related treatment responses in IBS patients.

Functional Bowel Disorders