Scan-Negative Cauda Equina Syndrome A Prospective Cohort Study

Objective: To describe clinical features relevant to diagnosis, mechanism, and etiology in patients with “scan-negative” cauda equina syndrome (CES). Methods: We carried out a prospective study of consecutive patients presenting with the clinical features of CES to a regional neurosurgery center comprising semi-structured interview and questionnaires investigating presenting symptoms, neurologic examination, psychiatric and functional disorder comorbidity, bladder/bowel/sexual function, distress, and disability. Results: A total of 198 patients presented consecutively over 28 months. A total of 47 were diagnosed with scan-positive CES (mean age 48 years, 43% female). A total of 76 mixed category patients had nerve root compression/displacement without CES compression (mean age 46 years, 71% female) and 61 patients had scan-negative CES (mean age 40 years, 77% female). An alternative neurologic cause of CES emerged in 14/198 patients during admission and 4/151 patients with mean duration 25 months follow-up. Patients with scan-negative CES had more positive clinical signs of a functional neurologic disorder (11% scan-positive CES vs 34% mixed and 68% scan-negative, p < 0.0001), were more likely to describe their current back pain as worst ever (41% vs 46% and 70%, p = 0.005), and were more likely to have symptoms of a panic attack at onset (37% vs 57% and 70%, p = 0.001). Patients with scan-positive CES were more likely to have reduced/absent bilateral ankle jerks (78% vs 30% and 12%, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between groups in the frequency of reduced anal tone and urinary retention. Conclusion: The first well-phenotyped, prospective study of scan-negative CES supports a model in which acute pain, medication, and mechanisms overlapping with functional neurologic disorders may be relevant

The national prevalence of disorders of gut brain interaction in the United Kingdom in comparison to their worldwide prevalence: Results from the Rome foundation global epidemiology study

Background: There are minimal epidemiological data comparing the burden of disorders of gut brain interaction (DGBI) in the UK with other countries. We compared the prevalence of DGBI in the UK with other countries that participated in the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) online. Methods: Participants from 26 countries completed the RFGES survey online including the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and an in-depth supplemental questionnaire with questions about dietary habits. UK sociodemographic and prevalence data were compared with the other 25 countries pooled together. Key Results: The proportion of participants with at least one DGBI was lower in UK participants compared with in the other 25 countries (37.6% 95% CI 35.5%–39.7% vs. 41.2%; 95% CI 40.8%–41.6%, p = 0.001). The UK prevalence of 14 of 22 Rome IV DGBI, including irritable bowel syndrome (4.3%) and functional dyspepsia (6.8%), was similar to the other countries. Fecal incontinence, opioid-induced constipation, chronic nausea and vomiting, and cannabinoid hyperemesis (p < 0.05) were more prevalent in the UK. Cyclic vomiting, functional constipation, unspecified functional bowel disorder, and proctalgia fugax (p < 0.05) were more prevalent in the other 25 countries. Diet in the UK population consisted of higher consumption of meat and milk (p < 0.001), and lower consumption of rice, fruit, eggs, tofu, pasta, vegetables/legumes, and fish (p < 0.001). Conclusions and Inferences: The prevalence and burden of DGBI is consistently high in the UK and in the rest of the world. Opioid prescribing, cultural, dietary, and lifestyle factors may contribute to differences in the prevalence of some DGBI between the UK and other countries

Treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea using titrated ondansetron (TRITON): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS-D) affects up to 4% of the general population. Symptoms include frequent, loose, or watery stools with associated urgency, resulting in marked reduction of quality of life and loss of work productivity. Ondansetron, a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, has had an excellent safety record for over 20 years as an antiemetic, yet is not widely used in the treatment of IBS-D. It has, however, been shown to slow colonic transit and in a small randomised, placebo-controlled, cross-over pilot study, benefited patients with IBS-D. Methods: This trial is a phase III, parallel group, randomised, double-blind, multi-centre, placebo-controlled trial, with embedded mechanistic studies. Participants (n = 400) meeting Rome IV criteria for IBS-D will be recruited from outpatient and primary care clinics and by social media to receive either ondansetron (dose titrated up to 24 mg daily) or placebo for 12 weeks. Throughout the trial, participants will record their worst abdominal pain, worst urgency, stool frequency, and stool consistency on a daily basis. The primary endpoint is the proportion of “responders” in each group, using Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations. Secondary endpoints include pain intensity, stool consistency, frequency, and urgency. Mood and quality of life will also be assessed. Mechanistic assessments will include whole gut transit, faecal tryptase and faecal bile acid concentrations at baseline and between weeks 8 and 11. A subgroup of participants will also undergo assessment of sensitivity (n = 80) using the barostat, and/or high-resolution colonic manometry (n = 40) to assess motor patterns in the left colon and the impact of ondansetron. Discussion: The TRITON trial aims to assess the effect of ondansetron across multiple centres. By defining ondansetron’s mechanisms of action we hope to better identify patients with IBS-D who are likely to respond

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of functional dyspepsia

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder of gut–brain interaction, affecting approximately 7% of individuals in the community, with most patients managed in primary care. The last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline for the management of dyspepsia was published in 1996. In the interim, substantial advances have been made in understanding the complex pathophysiology of FD, and there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning its diagnosis and classification, with the advent of the Rome IV criteria, and management. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of patients. The approach to investigating the patient presenting with dyspepsia is discussed, and efficacy of drugs in FD summarised based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of pairwise and network meta-analyses. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. These provide both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, in this guideline, we consider novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need and priorities for future research