Characteristics of, and natural history among, individuals with Rome IV functional bowel disorders

Rome Foundation Working Team Report on overlap in disorders of gut-brain interaction

In patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), overlapping non-gastrointestinal conditions such as fibromyalgia, headaches, gynaecological and urological conditions, sleep disturbances and fatigue are common, as is overlap among DGBI in different regions of the gastrointestinal tract. These overlaps strongly influence patient management and outcome. Shared pathophysiology could explain this scenario, but details are not fully understood. This overlap has been shown to be of great relevance for DGBI. In addition, symptoms considered to be caused by a DGBI could have a detectable organic cause, and in patients with a diagnosed organic gastrointestinal disease, symptoms not clearly explained by the pathology defining this organic disease are common. Thus, the aims of this Rome Foundation Working Team Report were to review the literature on overlapping conditions among patients with paediatric and adult DGBI and, based on the available epidemiological and clinical evidence, make recommendations for the current diagnostic and therapeutic approach, and for future research. Specifically, we focused on other DGBI in the same or different gastrointestinal anatomical region(s), DGBI overlap with organic bowel diseases in remission, and DGBI overlap with non-gastrointestinal, non-structural conditions.

Clinical Trial: Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of the Alpha-2-Delta Ligand PD-217,014 in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Despite the emergence of drugs to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), improving abdominal pain can still be challenging. α2δ ligands, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, are sometimes used off-label to tackle this problem. However, evidence for efficacy is limited, and no large-scale studies have been published.

AIM

To study the efficacy of the α2δ ligand PD-217,014 in IBS.

METHODS

This multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group study randomised participants with Rome II-defined IBS to 150 or 300 mg b.d. of PD-217,014 or placebo b.d. for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was responder, defined as having adequate relief of abdominal pain/discomfort for ≥ 50% of the active treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were change from baseline in abdominal pain, bloating, stool frequency/consistency, and global assessment of IBS symptoms.

RESULTS

We randomised 330 participants [aged 19-73 years; 209 (65%) female] satisfying Rome II criteria, 322 (98%) were treated, and of whom 271 (84%) completed the study. In this study, 321 satisfied Rome IV criteria. Neither dose of PD-217,014 improved the percentage of participants reporting adequate relief of abdominal pain/discomfort compared with placebo, either using the Rome II-defined total cohort or Rome II and IV IBS bowel habit sub-types. There were similar observations for secondary endpoints, and no association between abdominal pain or anxiety levels at baseline with participant improvement. PD-217,014 was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This first large, dose-ranging trial examining the efficacy of PD-217,014 showed no significant efficacy in participants with IBS or bowel habit sub-types, irrespective of their pain and anxiety levels.

The COVID-19 pandemic as a modifier of DGBI symptom severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This SRMA reviewed and assessed the changes in the severity of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, and evaluated factors associated with symptom severity changes.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched until February 2024, for articles reporting on changes in symptom severity in DGBI patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The proportion of DGBI patients who reported a change in their symptom severity were pooled using a random-effects model, and subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the effect of socio-cultural modifiers on symptom severity in DGBI.

KEY RESULTS

Twelve studies including 3610 DGBI patients found that 31.4% (95% CI, 15.9-52.5) of DGBI patients experienced symptom deterioration, while 24.3% (95% CI, 10.2-47.5) experienced improvement. Countries with high gross domestic product (GDP) had a 43.5% (95% CI, 16.3-75.2) likelihood of symptom deterioration, compared to 9.2% (95% CI, 1.4-42.2) in lower GDP countries. Similarly, countries with low COVID fatality rates had a 60.1% (95% CI, 19.7-90.3) likelihood of symptom deterioration, compared to 18.3% (95% CI, 7.8-36.9) in higher fatality rate countries. Countries with lenient COVID policies had a 58.4% (95% CI, 14.1-92.3) likelihood of symptom deterioration, compared to 19% (95% CI, 8.2-38.1) in countries with stricter policies. Patients in high vaccine hesitancy countries had a 51.4% (95% CI, 19.5-82.2) likelihood of symptom deterioration, compared to 10.6% (95% CI, 2.7-33.4) in low vaccine hesitancy countries.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

This meta-analysis reveals that a significantly higher proportion of DGBI patients experienced deterioration of symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various sociocultural, economic and environmental factors potentially modify the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on DGBI.

Epidemiology of Disorders of the Gut-Brain Interaction: An Appraisal of the Rome IV Criteria and Beyond

Disorders of the gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) are presently classified into mutually exclusive anatomical area-related symptom-based categories according to the Rome IV criteria. The pathophysiology of visceral nociception, which contributes to the wide range of symptoms of DGBIs, involves complex psychobiological processes arising from the bidirectional interactions of multiple systems at the gut and brain levels, which affect symptom expression and illness behaviors. The attitude toward an illness and expression of pain and bowel habit vary across cultures with variable interpretation based on sociocultural beliefs, which may not tally with the medical definitions. Thus, psychological factors impact DGBI definitions, their severity and health care utilization. Due to the poor localization and multisegment referral of visceral pain, the anatomical site of pain may not correspond to the affected segment, and there may be a variable degree of overlap among symptoms. The somewhat restrictively defined Rome IV criteria assume one-to-one correlation of symptoms with underlying pathophysiology and ignore overlapping DGBIs, nonstandardized symptom categories, and change or shift in category over time. The microorganic nature of DGBIs resulting from systemic, metabolic or motility disorders, gut dysbiosis and inflammation are not addressed in the Rome IV criteria. Although there is a multidimensional clinical profile that does address these factors, it is not followed rigorously in practice. Threshold changes for diagnostic criteria or addition/deletion of symptoms leads to wide variation among different DGBI criteria resulting in uncertain comparability of results. Although the Rome IV criteria are excellent for research studies and therapeutic trials in homogenous populations, further improvement is needed for their wider applicability in clinical practice.

The Disease Spectrum and Natural History of Patients With Abdominal Bloating or Distension: A Longitudinal Study

Background/Aims

Abdominal bloating or distension (AB/D) is a common complaint in the outpatient of gastroenterology department. Since the potential contributors are numerous and complex, a longitudinal study on the disease spectrum and natural history of patients was performed to better understand the key factors of AB/D.

Methods

Consecutive patients with the chief complaint of AB/D referred to the outpatient clinic were screened. Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) were diagnosed according to Rome IV criteria. A 3-year follow-up was performed to seek for the changes in symptoms as well as disease spectrum.

Results

A total of 261 participants were enrolled and 139 completed the follow-up. Most patients suffered from moderate to severe symptoms more than 1 day per week. Common causes of AB/D were FGIDs (51.7%) and organic diseases (17.2%). The latter group was older with lower body mass index (BMI). Functional dyspepsia was the most common type of FGIDs in AB/D. The symptoms of 18.0% of participants failed to improve at the end of the 3-year follow-up, and those diagnosed with FGIDs were most likely to continue to suffer. Abdominal pain was a positive predictive factor for good prognosis in the FGIDs group. Besides, only 22.7% of participants had a consistent diagnosis of FGIDs during follow-up.

Conclusions

FGIDs are the most common diagnosis in patients with AB/D. Symptoms were especially hard to be improved. Classification diagnoses of FGIDs in AB/D patients fluctuated significantly over time.

What Is Unspecified Functional Bowel Disorder? A Commonly Seen, Rarely Recognized, and Poorly Understood Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Unspecified functional bowel disorder (FBD-U) is a Rome IV diagnosis of exclusion and occurs when patients report bowel symptoms but do not meet the criteria for other functional bowel disorders (FBD; irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], functional constipation [FC], functional diarrhea [FDr], or functional bloating). Previous research suggests that FBD-U is as/more common than IBS.

METHODS

One thousand five hundred one patients at a single-center tertiary care center completed an electronic survey. Study questionnaires included Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaires, anxiety, depression, sleep, health care utilization, and bowel symptom severity measures.

RESULTS

Eight hundred thirteen patients met Rome IV criteria for a FBD and 194 patients (13.1%) met criteria for FBD-U, representing the second most common FBD after IBS. Severity of abdominal pain, constipation, and diarrhea were lower in FBD-U compared with other FBD, whereas health care utilization was similar among the groups. Scores on measures of anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances were similar in FBD-U compared with FC and FDr but were less severe than IBS. Between 25% and 50% of patients with FBD-U did not meet Rome IV criteria for other FBD due to timing of onset of the target symptom (e.g., constipation for FC, diarrhea for FDr, and abdominal pain for IBS).

DISCUSSION

FBD-U, by Rome IV criteria, is highly prevalent in clinical settings. These patients are not represented in mechanistic studies or clinical trials for not having met Rome IV criteria for other FBD. Making future Rome criteria less stringent would minimize the number fulfilling criteria for FBD-U and maximize the true representation of FBD in clinical trials.