Utility of irritable bowel syndrome subtypes and most troublesome symptom in predicting disease impact and burden

Background Little is known about the characteristics of individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) according to stool subtype or the most troublesome symptom reported by the individual, or whether these are useful in predicting the impact of IBS. Methods We collected demographic, gastrointestinal, and psychological symptoms, healthcare usage and direct healthcare costs, impact on work and activities of daily living, and quality of life data from individuals with Rome IV-defined IBS. Key Results We recruited 752 people with Rome IV IBS. Individuals with IBS-D reported a poorer disease-specific quality of life than those with IBS-C or IBS-M (mean (SD) IBS-QOL 45.3 (23.0) for IBS-D, vs. 52.3 (19.9) for IBS-C, vs. 49.4 (22.0) for IBS-M, p = 0.005). Mean (SD) IBS-QOL scores were also lower amongst those who reported diarrhea (44.8 (22.3)) or urgency (44.6 (22.3)) as their most troublesome symptom, compared with those reporting abdominal pain (52.2 (22.9)), constipation (49.5 (21.8)), or abdominal bloating or distension (50.4 (21.3)). However, there were no differences in mean EQ-5D scores, IBS severity, levels of anxiety, depression, somatoform symptom-reporting, or gastrointestinal symptom-specific anxiety. Direct healthcare costs of IBS were similar across all subtypes and all most troublesome symptom groups, although some differences in work productivity and social leisure activities were detected. Conclusions and Inferences There appears to be limited variation in the characteristics of individuals with Rome IV IBS based on both stool subtypes and most troublesome symptom reported, suggesting that gastrointestinal symptoms alone have limited ability to predict disease impact and burden

Antibiotics and Probiotics for Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a disorder of a gut-brain interaction characterised by abdominal pain and a change in stool form or frequency. Current symptom-based definitions and the classification of IBS promote heterogeneity amongst patients, meaning that there may be several different pathophysiological abnormalities leading to similar symptoms. Although our understanding of IBS is incomplete, there are several indicators that the microbiome may be involved in a subset of patients. Techniques including a faecal sample analysis, colonic biopsies, duodenal aspirates or surrogate markers, such as breath testing, have been used to examine the gut microbiota in individuals with IBS. Because of a lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a healthy gut microbiota, and the fact that alterations in gut microbiota have only been shown to be associated with IBS, a causal relationship is yet to be established. We discuss several hypotheses as to how dysbiosis may be responsible for IBS symptoms, as well as potential treatment strategies. We review the current evidence for the use of antibiotics and probiotics to alter the microbiome in an attempt to improve IBS symptoms. Rifaximin, a non-absorbable antibiotic, is the most studied antibiotic and has now been licensed for use in IBS with diarrhoea in the USA, but the drug remains unavailable in many countries for this indication. Current evidence also suggests that certain probiotics, including Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 9843 and Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, may be efficacious in some patients with IBS. Finally, we describe the future challenges facing us in our attempt to modulate the microbiome to treat IBS

Efficacy of Probiotics in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background and Aims 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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