British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of irritable bowel syndrome

Review article: current and future treatment approaches for pain in IBS

BACKGROUND

Abdominal pain is a core symptom of IBS and a primary driver of care seeking. Visceral hypersensitivity is a key pathophysiological mechanism and therapeutic target for pain in IBS, with components of peripheral and central sensitisation and psychological factors.

AIM

To review current and future treatment approaches specifically for the pain component of IBS.

METHODS

Pubmed search terms included combinations of irritable bowel, pain, visceral hypersensitivity, novel, new, emerging, future and advances.

RESULTS

Established non-pharmacological treatments for IBS pain include the low FODMAP diet, probiotics and psychological interventions, especially hypnotherapy. Tricyclics remain the best evidenced pharmacological approach with GCC agonists, tenapanor, lubiprostone, eluxadoline and 5HT3 antagonists second line according to patient characteristics and availability. Less well-evidenced current options include anti-spasmodics, peppermint oil, SSRIs, SNRIs, alpha 2 delta ligands, melatonin and histamine antagonists. Patients are vulnerable to iatrogenesis and harmful approaches to be avoided include opioids and unwarranted surgical interventions. For severe pain, the concept of augmentation with combined gut-brain neuromodulators and psychotherapy in a multi-disciplinary setting is considered. A plethora of molecular targets and ligands are emerging from pre-clinical studies, together with early clinical evidence for a range of pharmacological, dietary, neurostimulation and novel psychological treatment delivery methods which are reviewed. The history of such emerging approaches, however, merits both caution and optimism in equal measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite good in-roads and emerging options, the management of abdominal pain remains one of the biggest challenges and research priorities for patients with IBS.

Review article: Diagnosis and investigation of irritable bowel syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder of gut-brain interaction. It is defined by the Rome criteria as the presence of abdominal pain, related to defaecation, associated with a change in stool form and/or frequency. The approach to diagnosis and investigation of suspected IBS varies between clinicians and, due in part to the uncertainty that can surround the diagnosis, many still consider it to be a diagnosis of exclusion. However, exhaustive investigation is both unnecessary and costly, and may also be counterproductive. Instead, physicians should aim to make a positive diagnosis, based on their clinical assessment of symptoms, and limit their use of investigations. The yield of routine blood tests in suspected IBS is low overall, but normal inflammatory markers may be reassuring. All patients should have serological testing for coeliac disease, irrespective of their predominant stool form. Routine testing of stool microbiology or faecal elastase is unnecessary; however, all patients with diarrhoea aged <45 should have a faecal calprotectin or a similar marker measured which, if positive, should lead to colonoscopy to exclude possible inflammatory bowel disease. Colonoscopy should also be undertaken in any patient reporting alarm symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer, and in those whose presentation raises suspicion for microscopic colitis. Testing for bile acid diarrhoea should be considered for patients with IBS with diarrhoea where available. Hydrogen breath tests for lactose malabsorption or small intestinal bacterial overgrowth have no role in the routine assessment of suspected IBS. Adopting a standardised approach to the diagnosis and investigation of IBS will help to promote high-quality and high-value care for patients overall.

Review article: current and future treatment approaches for IBS with constipation

BACKGROUND

Multiple efficacious therapies are currently available for treating irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). IBS-C specific survey tools that assess symptom relief, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life are important for gauging real-world effectiveness.

AIMS/METHODS

This article reviews clinical trial efficacy data as well as survey data on adequate relief and quality of life from pivotal trials for lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, tenapanor, and tegaserod. A brief discussion of agents in development with novel mechanisms of action is also provided.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Quality of life and symptom metrics should be standardized and continue to be represented in future IBS-C trials. The choice of agent should be tailored to probability of improving symptoms, safety, tolerability, and cost.

Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and management of irritable bowel syndrome in Vietnam: A scoping review

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders worldwide. Its prevalence varies significantly from country to country, largely due to heterogeneity in the available data. Recent studies show that the prevalence of IBS in Asia is on the rise. However, there are very limited data regarding its prevalence in the Vietnamese population. This review aims to offer an overview of the prevalence and clinical characteristics of IBS in the Vietnamese population; and to discuss the current management of IBS in Vietnam-taking into account the available medical resources and the local spectrum of lower gastrointestinal disorders that may mimic IBS.

Strain-specific and outcome-specific efficacy of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Consistent guidance for choosing an appropriate probiotic for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome is lacking.

METHODS

Literature databases searched included: PubMed, Google Scholar and NIH registry of clinical trials from inception to June 2021. Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adult or pediatric IBS patients comparing probiotics against controls and ≥ 2 RCTs with common IBS outcome measures within each type of probiotic. Five common measures of IBS symptoms (changes in global Irritable Bowel Syndrome Severity Scoring System or IBS-SSS scores, frequency of global responders, changes in bloating or abdominal pain scores and frequency of abdominal pain relief) were used. This study was registered at Prospero (#CRD42018109169).

FINDINGS

We screened 521 studies and included 42 randomized controlled trials (45 treatment arms, N = 3856). Four probiotics demonstrated significant reduction in abdominal pain relief: B. coagulans MTCC5260 (RR= 4.9, 95% C.I. 3.3, 7.3), L. plantarum 299v (RR= 4.6, 95% CI 1.9, 11.0), S. boulardii CNCM I-745 (RR= 1.5, 95% C.I. 1.1, 2.1) and S. cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 (RR= 1.3, 95% C.I. 1.04, 1.6). Mild-moderate adverse events were reported in 51% of the trials, none were more associated with the probiotic compared to controls.

INTERPRETATION

Although the analysis of probiotic efficacy was limited by the diversity of IBS outcomes used in trials and lack of confirmatory trials for some strains, six single-strain probiotics and three different types of probiotic mixtures showed significant efficacy for at least one IBS outcome measure. These results might be relevant to clinical practice and policy.

Who uses probiotics and why? A survey study conducted among general gastroenterology patients

Background

The rapid growth of the probiotic industry suggests patients will continue to seek advice from gastroenterologists about probiotics. To best address patient questions and concerns, we must first understand who uses probiotics and why.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study conducted in the endoscopy suite of an academic hospital from June to October of 2019. Surveys were anonymous and contained a combination of multiple choice, free text and Likert scale questions. Participants privately completed a paper survey in English or Spanish and the results were reviewed with them by study personnel to clarify responses. Descriptive statistics were generated and multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to compare characteristics of probiotic users versus non-users.

Results

During the 5-month study period, 600 patients were approached and 537 (90%) agreed to participate. Among participants, 89% completed at least 24 survey items and were included in the analysis. Overall, 27% of patients reported probiotic use. Bloating, rather than diarrhoea, was the main gastrointestinal symptom associated with use of probiotics (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.44 for bloating; aOR 1.03, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.94 for diarrhoea). Frequent reasons cited for taking probiotics were the beliefs that they improved overall health and longevity (54%) and that they improved gastrointestinal symptoms (45%).

Conclusions

Probiotic use is common among general gastroenterology patients, many of whom believe that probiotics confer general rather than specific gastrointestinal health benefits. Symptoms—especially bloating—and not sociodemographic factors seem to motivate probiotic use. By understanding patient expectations for probiotics, clinicians can better advise them.