Search

Competing Interests: EM declares no competing interests. EVS has served as speaker for AbbVie, Agave, AGPharma, Alfasigma, Aurora Pharma, CaDiGroup, Celltrion, Dr Falk, EG Stada Group, Fenix Pharma, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, JB Pharmaceuticals, Innovamedica/Adacyte, Malesci, Mayoly Biohealth, Omega Pharma, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Sandoz, SILA, Sofar, Takeda, Tillots, and Unifarco; has served as consultant for AbbVie, Agave, Alfasigma, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Diadema Farmaceutici, Dr Falk, Fenix Pharma, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, JB Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Nestlè, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi, SILA, Sofar, Synformulas GmbH, Takeda, and Unifarco; and has received research support from Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, SILA, Sofar, Unifarco, and Zeta Farmaceutici.

GASTROSWOT is a strategic analysis of the current and projected states of the different subspecialties in gastroenterology that aims to provide guidance for research, clinical, and financial planning in gastroenterology. We executed a consensus-based international strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. Four general coordinators, six field coordinators, and 12 experts participated in the study. SWOTs were provided for the following fields: neurogastroenterology, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and upper gastrointestinal diseases; inflammatory bowel disease; pancreatology and biliary diseases; endoscopy; gastrointestinal oncology; and hepatology. The GASTROSWOT analysis highlights the following in the current state of the field of gastroenterology: the incidence and complexity of several gastrointestinal diseases, including malignancies, are increasing; the COVID-19 pandemic has affected patient care on several levels; and with the advent of technical innovations in gastroenterology, a well trained workforce and strategic planning are required to optimise health-care utilisation. The analysis calls attention to the following in the future of gastroenterology: artificial intelligence and the use of big data will speed up discovery and smarter health-care provision in the field; the growth and diversification of gastroenterological specialties will improve specialised care for patients, but could promote fragmentation of care and health system inefficiencies; and furthermore, thoughtful planning is needed to reach an effective balance between the need for subspecialists and the value of general gastroenterology services., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EdM is a consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Abbott, and Mylan. WA received consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Dynacare, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Takeda. SL received speaker and advisor fees from Gilead and AbbVie, and grants from Gilead. RP is a consultant to HCL Technologies, and on the scientific advisory board at Nestlé. VKS is consultant to AbbVie and Nestlé Health Science and has received grant funding from Orgenesis and Theraly. JV is a consultant to Olympus America, and on the scientific advisory board at Aspero Medical. AC consults for, is on the advisory board of, and has received education grants from from AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, and Pfizer. The Radboud University Medical Center, on behalf of JPHD, received honoraria or research grants from Gilead and AbbVie. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Crown Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Functional constipation is a common functional bowel disorder in the community, which has a varying prevalence across cross-sectional surveys. We did a contemporaneous systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using comparable methodology and all iterations of the Rome criteria to estimate the global prevalence of functional constipation., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Embase Classic from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2020, to identify population-based cross-sectional studies comprising at least 50 participants that reported the prevalence of functional constipation in adults (age 18 years and older) according to Rome I, II, III, or IV criteria. We excluded studies that reported the prevalence of functional constipation in convenience samples. We extracted prevalence estimates of functional constipation from eligible studies, according to the study criteria used to define it. For each study, we extracted data for country; method of data collection; criteria used to define functional constipation; whether the study used the Rome I, II, III, or IV diagnostic questionnaires or approximated these definitions of the condition using another questionnaire; the total number of participants providing complete data; age; the number of participants with the condition; the number of male and female participants; and the number of male and female participants with the condition. We calculated pooled prevalence, odds ratios (OR), and 95% CIs., Findings: Of 8174 citations evaluated, 45 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, representing 80 separate populations and comprising 275 260 participants. The pooled prevalence of functional constipation was 15·3% (95% CI 8·1-24·4, I 2 =99·4%) in studies using the Rome I criteria, 11·2% (7·9-14·9; I 2 =99·6%) in studies that used Rome II criteria, 10·4% (6·5-14·9; I 2 =99·8%) in those that used Rome III criteria, and 10·1% (8·7-11·6; I 2 =98·2%) when Rome IV criteria were used. Prevalence of functional constipation was higher in women, irrespective of the Rome criteria used (OR 2·40 [95% CI 2·02-2·86] for Rome I, 1·94 [1·46-2·57] for Rome II, and 2·32 [1·85-2·92] for Rome III; no studies using Rome IV criteria reported prevalence by sex). There was significant heterogeneity between studies in all of our analyses, which persisted even when the same criteria were applied and similar methodologies used., Interpretation: Even when uniform symptom-based criteria are used to define the presence of functional constipation, prevalence varies between countries. Thus, environmental, cultural, ethnic, dietary, or genetic factors can influence reporting of symptoms. Future studies should aim to elucidate reasons for this geographical variability., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests. Editorial note: the Lancet Group takes a neutral position with respect to territorial claims in published maps and institutional affiliations., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a lifelong condition with no cure. Patients with IBD might experience symptoms of common mental disorders such as anxiety and depression because of bidirectional communication via the gut-brain axis and chronicity of symptoms, and because of impaired quality of life and reduced social functioning. However, uncertainties remain about the magnitude of this problem. We aimed to assess prevalence of symptoms of anxiety or depression in adult patients with IBD., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, and PsycINFO for papers published from inception to Sept 30, 2020, reporting observational studies that recruited at least 100 adult patients with IBD and that reported prevalence of symptoms of anxiety or depression according to validated screening instruments. We excluded studies that only used a structured interview to assess for these symptoms and studies that did not provide extractable data. We extracted data from published study reports and calculated pooled prevalences of symptoms of anxiety and depression, odds ratios (OR), and 95% CIs., Findings: Of 5544 studies identified, 77 fulfilled the eligibility criteria, including 30 118 patients in total. Overall, pooled prevalence of anxiety symptoms was 32·1% (95% CI 28·3-36·0) in 58 studies (I 2 =96·9%) and pooled prevalence of depression symptoms was 25·2% (22·0-28·5) in 75 studies (I 2 =97·6%). In studies that reported prevalence of anxiety or depression in patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis within the same study population, patients with Crohn's disease had higher odds of anxiety symptoms (OR 1·2, 95% CI 1·1-1·4) and depression symptoms (1·2, 1·1-1·4) than patients with ulcerative colitis. Overall, women with IBD were more likely to have symptoms of anxiety than were men with IBD (pooled prevalence 33·8% [95% CI 26·5-41·5] for women vs 22·8% [18·7-27·2] for men; OR 1·7 [95% CI 1·2-2·3]). They were also more likely to have symptoms of depression than men were (pooled prevalence 21·2% [95% CI 15·4-27·6] for women vs 16·2% [12·6-20·3] for men; OR 1·3 [95% CI 1·0-1·8]). The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety (57·6% [95% CI 38·6-75·4]) or depression (38·9% [26·2-52·3]) was higher in patients with active IBD than in patients with inactive disease (38·1% [30·9-45·7] for anxiety symptoms and 24·2% [14·7-35·3] for depression symptoms; ORs 2·5 [95% CI 1·5-4·1] for anxiety and 3·1 [1·9-4·9] for depression)., Interpretation: There is a high prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with IBD, with up to a third of patients affected by anxiety symptoms and a quarter affected by depression symptoms. Prevalence was also increased in patients with active disease: half of these patients met criteria for anxiety symptoms and a third met criteria for depression symptoms. Encouraging gastroenterologists to screen for and treat these disorders might improve outcomes for patients with IBD., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common functional bowel disorders, but community prevalence appears to vary widely between different countries. This variation might be due to the fact that previous cross-sectional surveys have neither applied uniform diagnostic criteria nor used identical methodology, rather than being due to true global variability. We aimed to determine the global prevalence of IBS., Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from all population-based studies using relatively uniform methodology and using only the most recent iterations of the Rome criteria (Rome III and IV). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Embase Classic (from Jan 1, 2006, to April 30, 2020) to identify cross-sectional surveys reporting the prevalence of IBS in adults (≥90% of participants aged ≥18 years) according to the Rome III or Rome IV criteria. We also hand-searched a selection of conference proceedings for relevant abstracts published between 2006 and 2019. We extracted prevalence data for all studies, according to the criteria used to define the presence of IBS. We did a meta-analysis to estimate pooled prevalence rates, according to study location and certain other characteristics (eg, sex and IBS subtype)., Findings: We identified 4143 citations, of which 184 studies appeared relevant. 57 of these studies were eligible, and represented 92 separate adult populations, comprising 423 362 participants. The pooled prevalence of IBS in 53 studies that used the Rome III criteria, from 38 countries and comprising 395 385 participants, was 9·2% (95% CI 7·6-10·8; I 2 =99·7%). By contrast, pooled IBS prevalence among six studies that used the Rome IV criteria, from 34 countries and comprising 82 476 individuals, was 3·8% (95% CI 3·1-4·5; I 2 =96·6%). IBS with mixed bowel habit (IBS-M) was the most common subtype with the Rome III criteria, reported by 33·8% (95% CI 27·8-40·0; I 2 =98·1%) of people fulfilling criteria for IBS (ie, 3·7% [2·6-4·9] of all included participants had IBS-M), but IBS with diarrhoea (IBS-D) was the most common subtype with the Rome IV criteria (reported by 31·5% [95% CI 23·2-40·5; I 2 =98·1% 61·6%] of people with IBS, corresponding to 1·4% [0·9-1·9] of all included participants having IBS-D). The prevalence of IBS was higher in women than in men (12·0% [95% CI 9·3-15·0] vs 8·6% [6·3-11·2]; odds ratio 1·46 [95% CI 1·33-1·59]). Prevalence varied substantially between individual countries, and this variability persisted even when the same diagnostic criteria were applied and identical methodology was used in studies., Interpretation: Even when uniform symptom-based criteria are applied, based on identical methodology, to define the presence of IBS, prevalence varies substantially between countries. Prevalence was substantially lower with the Rome IV criteria, suggesting that these more restrictive criteria might be less suitable than Rome III for population-based epidemiological surveys., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)