Search

Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled. We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus , Saccharomyces , and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics. Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses. We studied the efficacy of probiotics for irritable bowel syndrome. There was some evidence of efficacy, but the quality of the trials included makes it hard to draw definitive conclusions. Future trials should be more rigorous and could focus on potentially effective strains or species from this meta-analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The gold standard symptom-based criteria for diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are the Rome IV criteria.1 These are more restrictive than their predecessor, Rome III, because the cardinal feature required to meet criteria for IBS was changed to presence of abdominal pain alone, rather than abdominal pain or discomfort.2 This change was made because discomfort was believed to be an ambiguous term, with no equivalent in some languages. In addition, symptom frequency required for the presence of abdominal pain was increased to 1 day per week from 2 to 3 days per month. This has led to reduced sensitivity for detecting IBS and a 50% decrease in the prevalence of the disorder in the community.3,4 In a cross-sectional survey applying both Rome IV and III criteria to people living with IBS, 89% of those with Rome III–defined IBS not meeting Rome IV criteria did not meet Rome IV criteria because of this change in pain frequency.5 Previous iterations of the Rome criteria have performed only modestly in predicting a diagnosis of IBS.6–8 However, in a validation study, the Rome IV criteria outperformed Rome III,9 largely because their more restrictive nature made them more specific than Rome III. We assessed whether modifications to the Rome IV criteria led to a better trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some brain-gut behavioral treatments (BGBTs) are beneficial for global symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). United States management guidelines suggest their use in patients with persistent abdominal pain, but their specific effect on this symptom has not been assessed systematically. We searched the literature through December 16, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing efficacy of BGBTs for adults with IBS, compared with each other or a control intervention. Trials provided an assessment of abdominal pain resolution or improvement at treatment completion. We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures and reporting pooled relative risks (RRs) of abdominal pain not improving with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), ranking therapies according to the P score. We identified 42 eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 5220 participants. After treatment completion, the BGBTs with the largest numbers of trials and patients recruited demonstrating efficacy for abdominal pain, specifically, included self-guided/minimal contact cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54–0.95; P score, 0.58), face-to-face multicomponent behavioral therapy (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54–0.97; P score, 0.56), and face-to-face gut-directed hypnotherapy (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61–0.96; P score, 0.49). Among trials recruiting only patients with refractory global IBS symptoms, group CBT was more efficacious than routine care for abdominal pain, but no other significant differences were detected. No trials were low risk of bias across all domains, and there was evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. Several BGBTs, including self-guided/minimal contact CBT, face-to-face multicomponent behavioral therapy, and face-to-face gut-directed hypnotherapy may be efficacious for abdominal pain in IBS, although none was superior to another. The efficacy of behavioral treatments for abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome was studied. Self-guided/minimal contact cognitive behavioral therapy, face-to-face multicomponent behavioral therapy, and face-to-face gut-directed hypnotherapy were better than a control intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a positive diagnosis, made using symptom-based criteria and limited, judicious, investigation. However, this may lead to uncertainty on the part of clinicians regarding potential for a missed diagnosis of organic gastrointestinal disease. Few studies have examined durability of a diagnosis of IBS, and none have used the current gold standard to diagnose IBS, the Rome IV criteria. We collected complete symptom data from 373 well-characterized adults meeting Rome IV criteria for IBS referred to a single UK clinic between September 2016 and March 2020. All patients underwent relatively standardized work-up to exclude relevant organic disease before diagnosis. We followed these individuals up to December 2022, assessing rates of rereferral, reinvestigation, and missed organic gastrointestinal disease. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years per patient (total follow-up in all patients, 1565 years), 62 (16.6%) patients were rereferred. Of these, 35 (56.5%) were rereferred for IBS and 27 (43.5%) for other gastrointestinal symptoms. Among the 35 rereferred with IBS this was caused by a change in symptoms in only 5 (14.3%). Reinvestigation was undertaken in 21 (60.0%) of 35 rereferred with IBS and 22 (81.5%) of 27 rereferred with other symptoms (P =.12). Only 4 (9.3% of those reinvestigated and 1.1% of the entire cohort) new cases of relevant organic disease, which may have been responsible for IBS symptoms at baseline, were identified (1 case of chronic calcific pancreatitis among those rereferred with IBS and 1 case each of inflammatory bowel disease–unclassified, moderate bile acid diarrhea, and small bowel obstruction among those rereferred with other gastrointestinal symptoms). Despite rereferral for gastrointestinal symptoms among 1 in 6 patients overall, with almost 10% rereferred with ongoing IBS symptoms, and substantial reinvestigation rates, missed organic gastrointestinal disease occurred in only 1%. A diagnosis of Rome IV IBS after limited investigation is safe and durable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]