Search

OBJECTIVES: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) are functional bowel disorders. Evidence suggests that disturbance in the gastrointestinal microbiota may be implicated in both conditions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics in IBS and CIC. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to December 2013). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS or CIC, which compared prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics with placebo or no therapy, were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized or weighted mean difference with a 95% CI. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 3,216 citations. Forty-three RCTs were eligible for inclusion. The RR of IBS symptoms persisting with probiotics vs. placebo was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.89). Probiotics had beneficial effects on global IBS, abdominal pain, bloating, and flatulence scores. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics in IBS were sparse. Probiotics appeared to have beneficial effects in CIC (mean increase in number of stools per week=1.49; 95% CI=1.02-1.96), but there were only two RCTs. Synbiotics also appeared beneficial (RR of failure to respond to therapy=0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.92). Again, trials for prebiotics were few in number, and no definite conclusions could be drawn. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics are effective treatments for IBS, although which individual species and strains are the most beneficial remains unclear. Further evidence is required before the role of prebiotics or synbiotics in IBS is known. The efficacy of all three therapies in CIC is also uncertain.

Fiber has been used for many years to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This approach had fallen out of favor until a recent resurgence, which was based on new randomized controlled trial (RCT) data that suggested it might be effective. We have previously conducted a systematic review of fiber in IBS, but new RCT data for fiber therapy necessitate a new analysis; thus, we have conducted a systematic review of this intervention.MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched up to December 2013. Trials recruiting adults with IBS, which compared fiber supplements with placebo, control therapy, or "usual management", were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy as well as number needed to treat (NNT) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).We identified 14 RCTs involving 906 patients that had evaluated fiber in IBS. There was a significant benefit of fiber in IBS (RR=0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.94 with an NNT=10; 95% CI=6-33). There was no significant heterogeneity between results (I(2)=0%, Cochran Q=13.85 (d.f.=14), P=0.46). The benefit was only seen in RCTs on soluble fiber (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.73-0.94 with an NNT=7; 95% CI 4-25) with no effect seen with bran (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.79-1.03).Soluble fiber is effective in treating IBS. Bran did not appear to be of benefit, although we did not uncover any evidence of harm from this intervention, as others have speculated from uncontrolled data.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional gastrointestinal disorder. Evidence relating to the treatment of this condition with antidepressants and psychological therapies continues to accumulate.We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to December 2013). Trials recruiting adults with IBS, which compared antidepressants with placebo, or psychological therapies with control therapy or "usual management," were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI).The search strategy identified 3,788 citations. Forty-eight RCTs were eligible for inclusion: thirty-one compared psychological therapies with control therapy or "usual management," sixteen compared antidepressants with placebo, and one compared both psychological therapy and antidepressants with placebo. Ten of the trials of psychological therapies, and four of the RCTs of antidepressants, had been published since our previous meta-analysis. The RR of IBS symptom not improving with antidepressants vs. placebo was 0.67 (95% CI=0.58-0.77), with similar treatment effects for both tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The RR of symptoms not improving with psychological therapies was 0.68 (95% CI=0.61-0.76). Cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnotherapy, multicomponent psychological therapy, and dynamic psychotherapy were all beneficial.Antidepressants and some psychological therapies are effective treatments for IBS. Despite the considerable number of studies published in the intervening 5 years since we last examined this issue, the overall summary estimates of treatment effect have remained remarkably stable.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is common in western Europe and North America, and many aspects of its epidemiology, risk factors, and natural history have been described in these regions. Recent data suggest, however, that IBS is also common in the rest of the world and there has been some evidence to suggest some differences in demographics and presenting features between IBS in the west and as it is experienced elsewhere. The World Gastroenterology Organization, therefore, established a Task Force comprising experts on the topic from all parts of the world to examine IBS from a global perspective. IBS does, indeed, seem to be common worldwide though with some significant variations in prevalence rates between regions and countries and there may well be some potentially interesting variations in presenting symptoms and sex distribution. The global map of IBS is far from complete; community-based prevalence data is not available from many areas. Furthermore, while some general trends are evident in terms of IBS impact and demographics, international comparisons are hampered by differences in diagnostic criteria, study location and methodology; several important unanswered questions have been identified that should form the basis for future collaborative research and have the potential to shed light on this challenging disorder. © 2012 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Several high-profile drug withdrawals for safety issues have brought into focus the FDA's process for approving drugs and monitoring adverse experiences with those agents after marketing has begun. Gastroenterologists and their patients have been affected adversely by removal from the marketplace of two licensed agents for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): alosetron and tegaserod. The criteria used by the FDA for assessment of the risks and benefits of drugs used for functional bowel problems seem to be different than those used for the treatment of other conditions and have resulted in drastic limitation of access to these drugs rather than just warnings about risks as they are discovered. Decisions that affect the availability of drugs for patients with functional bowel disease should be discussed with clinicians who take care of those patients before going into effect. The absence of this sort of consultation leaves physicians with serious limitations on their abilities to take care of patients.

Objectives: Elimination diets have been used for many years to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). These approaches had fallen out of favor until a recent resurgence, which was based on new randomized controlled trial (RCT) data that suggested it might be effective. The evidence for the efficacy of dietary therapies has not been evaluated systematically. We have therefore conducted a systematic review to examine this issue. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched up to December 2013. Trials recruiting adults with IBS, which compared any form of dietary restriction or addition of an offending food group in patients already on a restricted diet vs. placebo, control therapy, or “usual management”, were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of remaining symptomatic after therapy as well as the number needed to treat with a 95% confidence interval. Results: We identified 17 RCTs involving 1,568 IBS patients that assessed elimination diets. Only three RCTs involving 230 patients met our eligibility criteria, all of which evaluated different approaches, and thus a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Conclusions: More evidence is needed before generally recommending elimination diets for IBS patients.

Eighty years ago, 10 men met in the New York City home of Samuel Weiss to found the organization that would become the American College of Gastroenterology. Their goals were sixfold: to unite in one organization qualified physicians, teachers, and research workers of high standing in gastroenterology; to emphasize and to advance the clinical practice of diseases and disorders of the gastrointestinal tract and accessory organs of digestion, including nutrition; to further the study of gastroenterology and allied subjects; to encourage gastrointestinal research and publish the results; to promote greater interest among practicing physicians in diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and further their training in clinical gastroenterology; and to maintain and promote the highest standards in medical practice, medical education, and research in the field. These goals still animate the College today.

It is my honor and pleasure to introduce Dr Del Chumley, your American College of Gastroenterology President. Del has been a great friend and exemplar. I’ve known Del for about 15 years, and during that time I’ve learned a great deal from him about life, service to others, and the importance of physician organizations to maintaining an environment in which doctors can do the best for our patients.

Reply to Letter from Dr. Jerry Gardner about: Balancing Drug Risk and Benefit: Toward Refining the Process of FDA Decisions Affecting Patient Care