Irritable Bowel Syndrome In Primary Care Research Articles

Amitriptyline for the Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Primary Care

Family practitioners commonly manage irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with the use of dietary modifications, antispasmodics, laxatives, or anti-diarrheal drugs. If these first-line therapies fail to improve symptoms, neuromodulators such as amitriptyline are recommended as a second-line treatment. However, amitriptyline is infrequently prescribed for the management of IBS in primary care as its efficacy has not previously been studied in this setting.

Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

Irritable bowel syndrome in children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the most common functional gastrointestinal disorder in children. However, in primary care, it is still unknown whether there are differences in the prognosis of children with IBS compared to other diagnostic subgroups. Therefore, our aim was to describe the course of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms who either do or do not fulfil the Rome criteria for IBS in primary care. Second, we compared the diagnosis of the general practitioner (GP) with the Rome criteria. We conducted a prospective cohort study with 1-year follow-up, including children aged 4-18 years with chronic diarrhoea and/or chronic abdominal pain in primary care. During follow-up, the Rome III questionnaire, Child Health Questionnaire, and symptom questionnaires were completed. A total of 60/104 children (57.7%) fulfilled the Rome criteria for IBS at baseline. Compared to children without IBS, children with IBS were more commonly referred to secondary care, used more laxatives, and more often developed chronic diarrhoea and low physical HRQoL during 1 year. The diagnosis "IBS" from the GP matched the Rome criteria for only 10% of children, as most were diagnosed with "Constipation." There seems to be a difference in the treatment and prognosis of symptoms and HRQoL between children with and without IBS in primary care. This suggests that it is relevant to differentiate between these groups. The evaluation and use of feasible criteria to define IBS in different healthcare settings remains subject for further studies.

PTU-061 Use of faecal calprotectin in primary care to distinguish irritable bowel syndrome from inflammatory bowel disease: Abstract PTU-061 Table 1

<h3>Introduction</h3> Faecal Calprotectin (FC) is a simple, non-invasive test which can differentiate Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) from Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). High negative predictive values suggest potential cost-effective benefits in Primary Care, reducing unnecessary referrals to secondary care and expensive/invasive diagnostic tests eg. colonoscopy. FC is well established in secondary care, but the literature for FC in primary care is extremely limited. <h3>Aim</h3> Evaluation of a pilot study of a defined FC pathway in Primary Care. <h3>Method</h3> A primary care referral pathway was devised to guide appropriate use of FC in Primary Care to exclude IBD in appropriate patients, particularly if secondary care referral was being considered. This was based on IBS guidelines (BSG), FC literature and recent NHS Centre for Evidence-Based Purchasing report (2010), consisting of a pathway proforma with initial screening tests (FBC, LFTs, TTG, CRP, TSH and stool microbiology). <b>Inclusion/Exclusion criteria</b>: 16–45 yrs age, IBS-compatible symptoms for ≥6 weeks/recurrent, no red flags. FC results (Quantum Blue) classified as normal, intermediate or high and supplied with appropriate action guidance (Table 1). Subsequent clinic attendances, investigations, diagnostic outcomes and associated costs were evaluated. <h3>Results</h3> Nineteen GP surgeries (19/22) referred 277 patients via FC pathway over 24 months (Jan 2013–Jan 2015). Forty-five samples rejected as inappropriate. Diagnosis outcomes were available on 175/232 patients at the time of presented data analysis: Elevated 13.7% (24), Indeterminate 19.4% (34) and Normal 66.8% (117). In Elevated FC clinic attenders, IBD was detected in 50% (11/22). Indeterminates were repeated in only 68%: normal repeat 52.2% (12/23), 2 IBD cases detected. After a normal FC, 12.8% were referred to secondary care anyway, but no IBD detected. In the normal FC group alone, assuming a normal FCP avoided a secondary care referral in 87.2% (102/117), the potential cost savings = £73,468 (assuming new patient clinic + 1 colonoscopy = £741.68). <h3>Conclusion</h3> Preliminary data suggests a structured FC pathway is effective in distinguishing IBD and IBS in Primary Care with significant cost savings. Age ranges and FC cut-off points need further refinement. Based on this pilot data and latest NICE Diagnostic Appraisal 11, the Herefordshire Clinical Commission Group have commissioned a secondary care supervised FC service for primary care. <h3>Disclosure of interest</h3> None Declared.

PWE-162 An Audit Of Testing For Coeliac Disease In Patients Diagnosed With The Irritable Bowel Syndrome At A Large Primary Care Centre

IntroductionNICE guidance recommends that patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) should be tested for coeliac disease (CD). This study reviewed the symptoms, demographics and investigation...

Long-term treatment with probiotics in primary care patients with irritable bowel syndrome – a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

Objective. Meta-analyses have indicated effect of probiotics on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, few long-term trials have been conducted and uncertainty remains as to effectiveness and long-term effect in a primary care setting. We aimed to investigate the effect of probiotics compared with placebo in the management of IBS in primary care during a 6-month treatment period and with a 6-month follow-up. Material and methods. We randomized IBS patients fulfilling Rome III criteria to receive two capsules twice daily either containing placebo or a probiotic mixture of Lactobacillus paracasei ssp paracasei F19, Lactobacillus acidophilus La5 and Bifidobacterium Bb12 in an amount of 1.3 × 1010 CFU per capsule. Primary endpoint was proportion of responders defined as patients reporting adequate relief (AR) at least 50% of the time in the 6-month treatment period. Secondary outcomes were proportions of patients reporting AR at different time points, and change in gastrointestinal symptoms and health-related quality of life (HrQOL) from baseline to 6 and 12 months. Results. A total of 131 patients were included in this study. The proportion of responders in the treatment period was 52% (35/67) in the probiotic group versus 41% (26/64) in the placebo group, p = 0.18. Overall we found no difference between the groups in change in gastrointestinal symptoms after treatment. Patients improved in HrQOL, but with no statistically significant difference between the groups. Conclusion.During a 6-month treatment period, we were not able to detect a positive effect of probiotic when compared with placebo.

Patients Suspected of Irritable Bowel Syndrome—Cross-Sectional Study Exploring the Sensitivity of Rome III Criteria in Primary Care

The Rome III criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are recommended by guidelines to help identify the syndrome. The majority of IBS patients are managed in primary care, where a pragmatic approach to diagnosis is usually adopted, using clinical judgment and knowledge about the patient. Many general practitioners (GPs) have no or limited knowledge of the diagnostic criteria, few use them, and many consider IBS a diagnosis of exclusion. The aim of this study is to explore the sensitivity of the Rome III criteria in relation to a GP-based clinical diagnosis of IBS, to identify differences between Rome III-positive and -negative patients, and to describe the agreement between the various symptom-based criteria. Patients aged 18-50 years, presenting in primary care with gastrointestinal complaints and identified as IBS patients by their GP, were referred for enrollment. The Manning and Rome I-III criteria were evaluated through interviews and patients completed the questionnaires The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS)/The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale modified for use in patients with IBS (GSRS-IBS), Short Form 36, Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life measurement, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire-irritable bowel version, and a questionnaire on use of health-care resources. A total of 604 patients were referred and 499 were included (mean age 32.8 (s.d. 9.5) years, 75% were female). The Rome III criteria were fulfilled by 376 patients (sensitivity 0.75, 95% CI 71-79%). Rome III-positive patients more frequently reported disturbed defecation, had a higher symptom burden, and lower disease-specific health-related quality of life compared with Rome III-negative patients. The various symptom-based criteria identified slightly different subpopulations with the highest agreement between the Rome II and III criteria. The Rome III criteria identified three in four patients labeled with IBS in primary care. The relevance of the Rome III for IBS in primary care is supported.

A Positive Diagnostic Strategy Is Noninferior to a Strategy of Exclusion for Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Guidelines recommend a positive strategy based on symptom criteria to diagnose patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We conducted a randomized noninferiority trial to determine whether a positive diagnostic strategy is noninferior to a strategy of exclusion, with regard to patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We studied 302 patients (18-50 years old) from primary care who were suspected of having IBS and referred by general practitioners. Patients who fulfilled the Rome III criteria for IBS with no alarm signals were randomly assigned to groups assessed by a strategy of exclusion (analyses of blood, stool samples for intestinal parasites, and sigmoidoscopies with biopsies) or a positive strategy (analyses of blood cell count and C-reactive protein). Patients were followed for 1 year. The primary end point was difference in change of HRQOL from baseline to 1 year between groups (on the basis of the Short Form 36 health survey, physical component summary, and noninferiority margin of 3 points). Secondary outcomes were change in gastrointestinal symptoms, satisfaction with management, and use of resources. Findings of diagnostic misclassification were registered. A positive strategy was noninferior to a strategy of exclusion (difference, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, -2.74 to 1.45). The positive diagnostic strategy had lower direct costs. Each approach had similar effects on symptoms, satisfaction, and subsequent use of health resources. No cases of inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer, or celiac disease were found. In diagnosing IBS in primary care, use of a positive diagnostic strategy is noninferior to using a strategy of exclusion with regard to the patients' HRQOL. Our findings support the current guideline recommendations.

Can we improve the negative predictive value of faecal calprotectin for the diagnosis of IBS in primary care?

IntroductionRecent data has established faecal calprotectin (FC) as a highly sensitive and specific test for detecting inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in patients referred to secondary care.1 Computer modelling has shown...

Predictors of treatment outcome after cognitive behavior therapy and antispasmodic treatment for patients with irritable bowel syndrome in primary care

Objective To examine predictors of treatment outcome in IBS-patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial in primary care, where 149 irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients were randomized to mebeverine hydrochloride ( n=77) or mebeverine+cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) ( n=72). CBT offered additional benefit over mebeverine alone. Methods Regression analyses were used to identify predictors of work and social adjustment 12 months after treatment ended. The intervention groups were analyzed separately in order to look at the separate effects in each group. Results Lower levels of psychological distress (anxiety and depression) at baseline predicted a good outcome in the mebeverine group [β=0.388 (95% CI: 0.065–0.936), P=.025] but not in the mebeverine+CBT group. In the adjusted model for the mebeverine+CBT group less adaptive IBS related behavioral coping predicted a good outcome [β=0.285 (95% CI: 0.002–0.210), P=.045]. Conclusion Different factors are associated with outcome depending on the treatment received. At assessment clinicians should assess patients coping styles and may want to consider recommending CBT to those patients with IBS in primary care who are engaging in unhelpful coping behavior.

GPs' explanatory models for irritable bowel syndrome: a mismatch with patient models?

Inconsistencies in doctors' views about causes and treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) lead to frustration for doctors and in doctor-patient interactions. Diagnosis by GPs does not correspond well to established diagnostic criteria. To understand GPs' explanatory models (EMs) and management strategies for IBS. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 30 GPs (15 from the UK and 15 from The Netherlands). Diagnosing IBS in primary care is a complex process, involving symptoms, tests, history and risk calculation. GPs were uncertain about the aetiology of IBS, but often viewed it as a consequence of disordered bowel activity in response to stress, which was viewed as a function of people's responses to their environment. GPs tend to diagnose IBS by exclusion, rather than with formal diagnostic criteria. They endeavoured to present the IBS diagnosis to their patients in a way that they would accept, fearing that many would not be satisfied with a diagnosis that had no apparent physical cause. GPs focused on managing symptoms and reassuring patients. Many GPs felt that patients needed to take the responsibility for managing their IBS and for minimizing its impact on their daily lives. However, the GPs had limited awareness of the extent to which IBS affected their patients' daily lives. GPs' diagnostic procedures and EMs for IBS are at odds with patient expectations and current guidelines. Shared discussion of what patients believe to be triggers for symptoms, ways of coping with symptoms and the role of medication may be helpful.

Self-reported use of pharmaceuticals among patients with irritable bowel syndrome in primary care.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has an estimated 10%-12% prevalence in industrial countries. Studies from the United States have shown that IBS causes notable financial losses for employers. Due to the lack of pathophysiological markers, only a fraction of the pharmacological management of IBS has focused on etiological mechanisms. We hypothesized that there is a high consumption of nonspecific drugs among patients with IBS in their attempts to manage symptoms. To analyze self-reported use of prescription and over-thecounter (OTC) drugs among patients with IBS in primary care compared with controls from the general population. A population-based case-control design was used for the study. IBS cases were identified from the electronic medical records of 3 Swedish primary health care centers from January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2001. A questionnaire containing specific questions about prescription and OTC drugs was mailed in 2003 to 5,015 working-age (18-64 years) individuals (IBS cases and controls) in the Linkping IBS Population Study, a study of primary care patients with controls selected from the general population. After 2 reminders, the overall response rate was 63% (3,074 respondents of 4,913 deliverable surveys); 71% responded for the IBS cases (347/486) and 57% (2,509/4,427) responded for the controls. 72.3% of the IBS respondents and 51.9% of the controls were female. Acid-suppressive agents were the most commonly cited drug category for abdominal complaints reported by IBS patients (13.3%) compared with controls (1.6%) (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] = 9.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.94-14.25). Antidepressants were the most commonly cited drug category for nonabdominal complaints, reported by 13.3% of IBS patients versus 4.5% of controls (OR = 3.27, 95% CI = 2.27-4.70). An unadjusted univariate correlation analysis revealed that prescription acid-suppressive drugs, fiber and bulking laxatives, and antiflatulents and antidiarrhea drugs, as well as motility-regulating and antispasmodics drugs, were significantly more common among IBS cases compared with controls. In addition to the higher use of antidepressants, there were 3 other drug classes for nongastrointestinal complaints with a higher rate of use among IBS patients compared with controls: sedative hypnotics (OR = 2.49, CI = 1.44- 4.29), analgesics (OR = 2.86, CI = 1.88-4.33), and thyroid hormones (OR = 2.43, CI = 1.39-4.26). There was higher use of antidepressants among patients with IBS compared with controls from the general population. Even though they are not recommended for this patient category, the use of prescription and OTC acid-suppressive drugs is also common among IBS cases in primary care.

Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Primary Care: Is There a Link?

Population-based studies have shown that gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) coexist more commonly than expected by chance. We aimed to investigate the relationship between GERD and IBS in primary care. The General Practice Research Database was used to identify patients with a first diagnosis of GERD (n=6,421) or IBS (n=2,932). Patients were followed up for 12 months after diagnosis to investigate the incidence of IBS among GERD patients and GERD among IBS patients. The relative risk (RR) of developing IBS was 3.5 (95% CI: 2.3-5.4) in the GERD cohort compared with the comparison cohort. The RR of developing GERD was 2.8 (95% CI: 1.7-4.9) in the IBS cohort compared with the comparison cohort. A first diagnosis of either IBS or GERD significantly increases the risk of a subsequent diagnosis of the other condition.

Functional bowel disorders in primary care: Factors associated with health-related quality of life and doctor consultation

Background The role of psychological factors in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains unclear, particularly in a primary care setting, where relatively little research on this common and costly condition has been carried out. The aim of this study was to investigate the relative contribution of physical and psychological factors to health-related quality of life and health-care utilization in patients with functional bowel disease (IBS-like symptoms) in primary care. We also wished to establish the relevance of formal diagnostic criteria to IBS in the primary care setting. Methods This study used a cross-sectional design. Four hundred twenty patients with functional bowel disorders in primary care completed a series of measures, including bowel symptom status and severity, severity of psychological distress, personality, and quality of life. The number of visits to a general practitioner (GP) in the previous 12 months was recorded. Results The following variables were independently and highly significantly associated with health-related quality of life in patients with functional bowel disorders in primary care: total psychological symptom score, diarrhea severity, abdominal pain for >12 weeks, and abdominal distension. A similar pattern emerged between patients who met meet Rome II criteria for IBS and patients who did not meet Rome II criteria for IBS. Relatively few variables (either physical or psychological) had a major impact on the number of GP consultations, with the exception of frequency of bowel movements. Conclusion This study confirms that psychological factors are significantly associated with health-related quality of life in patients with IBS in primary care. Physical symptom severity is also important. Relatively few symptom measures, either physical or psychological, have a major impact on doctor consultation rates in primary care.

Psychosocial factors at work and in every day life are associated with irritable bowel syndrome

The etiology of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) tends to be complex and multi-factorial and there is still a lack of understanding of how different psychosocial factors are associated with the syndrome. Our aim was to examine the occurrence of psychosocial and behavioural factors among patients diagnosed with IBS in primary care. The study had an epidemiological population-based case-control design comparing 347 IBS cases to 1041 age and sex matched controls from the general population. A survey was directed to cases and controls based on validated questions asking for mood status, job strain, family history of IBS, and sleeping habits as well as education, nutritional and exercise habits and medication. In multivariate analyses, independent associations were found between IBS and lack of influence on work planning, a family history of IBS, anxiety, and sleeping disturbances. Important factors associated with IBS diagnosis among females were anxiety as well as family history of IBS and lack of co-determination at work. For males, only lack of influence on working pace and family history of IBS remained independently associated with an IBS diagnosis. The causal associations of the complex risk factor panorama for IBS warrants further study. This study indicates that there should be a special focus on investigating the psychosocial working conditions and their associations to IBS.

The diagnosis of IBS in primary care: consensus development using nominal group technique

The criteria used to identify and diagnose irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in primary care are unclear, even though most patients are managed entirely in this setting. To use a validated method of consensus development [Nominal Group Technique (Rand version)] (NGT-R) in order to construct a diagnostic framework for IBS appropriate to primary care. NGT-R is a formal method of consensus development, which uses structured interaction within a group combined with statistical derivation of group judgements. The group comprised 10 GPs with a special interest in gastroenterology and two gastroenterologists, from 10 European countries. Mailed questionnaires elicited judgements on 242 scenarios for the diagnosis of IBS, within four domains of symptoms, social and lifestyle features, psychological features and investigations. Feedback of group decisions was followed by structured face-to-face interaction and private rescoring of the questionnaire. Consensus was defined as 10/12 ratings within one of three bands, 1-3 (disagreement), 4-6 (equivocal) or 7-9 (agreement). The defining features of IBS in primary care are alteration in bowel habit, bloating and abdominal pain, or discomfort or annoyance (the last reflecting important cultural differences in symptom description). These symptoms need to be present for at least 4 weeks. Supportive characteristics include female sex, family history of IBS, frequent clinic attendances, a recent major life event and a history of somatization behaviours. Abdominal examination was considered necessary in all patients and rectal examination, haemoglobin estimation and colonoscopy in those aged > 55 years. The subtypes of IBS are recognized, but the diagnostic process differs only in minor ways. Final consensus was reached on 46% of statements. The basis of IBS diagnosis in primary care differs from, and is less exclusive than, existing criteria. Few features are deemed essential for diagnosis, while psychosocial features, patient characteristics and contextual factors are important in increasing diagnostic probability. There are important cultural differences in the description of key symptoms. These results provide information on the defining characteristics of IBS and the diagnostic process, as it occurs in primary care, and can guide clinical practice.

Doctor-patient interaction for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: a systematic perspective.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is defined by specific validated symptom criteria and encompasses several different underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that express a common set of symptoms. However, IBS is poorly understood by patients. We aimed to explore how a diagnosis of IBS affects the interaction between patients and their physicians. A comprehensive literature search for studies in the English language addressing this issue was conducted using Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Database, Psychinfo, Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science and manual recursive search of reference lists. Investigators reviewed and abstracted data from articles fulfilling our inclusion criteria: primary care patients, all ages, gender and ethnic groups diagnosed with IBS by a general practitioner (GP). Retrieval of 121 articles generated only four that met inclusion criteria. Research methods of three studies relied solely on qualitative subjective, anecdotal patient narratives, a bias in favor of patients' negative opinion, absence of objective physician diagnostic criteria, pre-testing questions for two studies, follow-up and patient verification of accounts for accuracy. The fourth study included objective physician diagnostic criteria, quantitative measures, a pre-testing questionnaire, and both patient and doctor perspectives. There was a disparity between patient and GP perception regarding the nature, severity and consequences of IBS in primary care, leading patients to perceive this interaction as one of dissatisfaction. The fourth study revealed GP management of IBS mostly meets patient's expectations areas of concern centered on etiology, diagnostic criteria and dietary advice. Disparity seems to lie with the physician, who needs to provide more trust, knowledge, and sympathy, create rapport and be forthcoming with information, while keeping information simple and understandable. Patient dissatisfaction stems from the actual information provided and how this is communicated. There is evidence that some IBS patients in primary care experience dissatisfaction and negative attitudes in GP interactions. Future research should take into account personality attributes and cross-situational stability in addition to methodological implications of studies. GPs may be the first avenue for IBS patients to vent their frustration, and appropriate education programs for optimal management of patients with IBS are needed in primary care.

Systematic review: the role of different types of fibre in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

Both high-fibre dietary advice and the prescription of fibre as a bulking agent are very common in primary and secondary care management of irritable bowel syndrome. Irritable bowel syndrome patients with constipation may have delayed intestinal transit. Therefore, fibres that accelerate intestinal transit may be beneficial in these patients. The uncertain benefits reported in several clinical studies, however, have led us to reappraise the value of fibre in irritable bowel syndrome management. To quantify the effect of different types of fibre on global and symptom relief from irritable bowel syndrome. Using a structured literature search in MEDLINE (1966-2002), we selected randomized controlled trials involving irritable bowel syndrome patients treated with fibre. Analyses were performed for the total group and for trials using soluble and insoluble fibre separately. Seventeen studies were included in the analysis. None investigated primary care irritable bowel syndrome patients. Fibre, in general, was effective in the relief of global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms [relative risk, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.50]. Irritable bowel syndrome patients with constipation may receive benefit from fibre treatment (relative risk, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.21-2.02), but there was no evidence that fibre was effective in the relief of abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome. Soluble and insoluble fibre, separately, had different effects on global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Soluble fibre (psyllium, ispaghula, calcium polycarbophil) showed significant improvement (relative risk, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.35-1.78), whereas insoluble fibre (corn, wheat bran), in some cases, worsened the clinical outcome, but there was no significant difference compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72-1.11). The benefits of fibre in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome are marginal for global irritable bowel syndrome symptom improvement and irritable bowel syndrome-related constipation. Soluble and insoluble fibres have different effects on global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Indeed, in some cases, insoluble fibres may worsen the clinical outcome. Future clinical studies evaluating the effect and tolerability of fibre therapy are needed in primary care.

Do patients with irritable bowel syndrome in primary care really differ from outpatients with irritable bowel syndrome?

Background—Little is known about the comparability of outpatients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and patients with IBS in primary care with regard to severity of complaints, perceived limitations, other aspects...