Do the digestive tract symptoms in eating disorder patients represent functional gastrointestinal disorders?

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are common in patients with eating disorders. The aim of this study was to determine, using factor analysis, whether these GI symptom factors (clusters) in eating disorder patients hold true to the Rome II classification of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs). METHODS: Inpatients in a specialised eating disorder unit completed the Rome II questionnaire. Data from 185 patients were analysed using factor analysis of 17 questions cited as present in 30% to 70% of the patients. RESULTS: Five factors emerged accounting for 68% of the variance and these were termed: ‘oesophageal discomfort’, ‘bowel dysfunction’, ‘abdominal discomfort’, ‘pelvic floor dysfunction’, and ‘self-induced vomiting’. These factors are significantly related to the Rome II FGID categories of functional oesophageal, bowel and anorectal disorders, and to the specific FGIDs of IBS, functional abdominal bloating, functional constipation and pelvic floor dyssynergia. Both heartburn and chest pain were included in the oesophageal discomfort factor. The ‘pelvic floor dysfunction’ factor was distinct from functional constipation. CONCLUSIONS: The GI symptoms common in eating disorder patients very likely represent the same FGIDs that occur in non-ED patients. Symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction in the absence of functional constipation, however, are prominent in eating disorder patients. Further investigation of the items comprising the ‘pelvic floor dysfunction’ factor in other patient populations may yield useful results

The management of adult patients with severe chronic small intestinal dysmotility

Adult patients with severe chronic small intestinal dysmotility are not uncommon and can be difficult to manage. This guideline gives an outline of how to make the diagnosis. It discusses factors which contribute to or cause a picture of severe chronic intestinal dysmotility (eg, obstruction, functional gastrointestinal disorders, drugs, psychosocial issues and malnutrition). It gives management guidelines for patients with an enteric myopathy or neuropathy including the use of enteral and parenteral nutritio

Novel insights into fecal incontinence in men

Fecal incontinence (FI) in men is common, yet data on sex differences in clinical features, physiology, and treatment are scarce. Our aim was to provide insights into FI in males compared with females. Prospectively collected data from 73 men and 596 women with FI in a tertiary referral center were analyzed. Anorectal physiology, clinical characteristics, and outcome of instrumented biofeedback (BF) were recorded. Thirty-one men with FI proceeded to BF and were matched with 62 age-matched women with FI who underwent BF. Men with FI had higher resting, squeeze, and cough anal sphincter pressures (P < 0.001) and were more able to hold a sustained squeeze compared with women (P = 0.04). Men with FI had higher rectal pressure and less inadequate rectal pressure on strain and higher sensory thresholds (P < 0.05). Men, but not women, with isolated soiling had higher anal resting and squeeze pressures compared with those with overt FI (P < 0.05). Men were less likely to undergo BF when offered compared with women. Baseline symptom severity did not differ between the groups. In men, the absence of an organic cause for the FI and the presence of overt FI, but not isolated soiling, were correlated with improvement in patient satisfaction following BF. The outcomes of 50% reduction in FI episodes, physician assessment, symptoms, and quality of life scores after BF all significantly improved in men similarly to women. We conclude that men, compared with women, with FI have unique clinical features and physiology and are less likely to have investigations and treatment despite successful outcome with BF. Future studies to customize treatment in males and determine barriers to therapy are warranted. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Fecal incontinence in men is common, yet data on sex differences in clinical features, physiology, and treatment are scarce. We provide evidence that men, compared with women, with fecal incontinence have unique clinical features and physiology and are less likely to have investigations and treatment despite successful outcome with anorectal biofeedback therapy.6 page(s

Fructose-sorbitol ingestion provokes gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with eating disorders

AIM: To evaluate gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and breath hydrogen responses to oral fructose-sorbitol (F-S) and glucose challenges in eating disorder (ED) patients

Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?

Background: Instrumented anorectal biofeedback (BF) improves symptoms and quality of life in patients with faecal incontinence and defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation. However, demand for BF greatly outweighs availability, so refinement of the BF protocol, in terms of the time and resources required, is of importance. Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of an abbreviated BF protocol in patients with defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation and/or faecal incontinence compared to standard BF. Methods: Data were collected from consecutive patients ( n = 31; age 54 ± 15; 29 females; 61% functional constipation) undergoing an intentionally abbreviated BF protocol, and compared in a 1:2 ratio with 62 age, gender and functional anorectal disorder-matched control patients undergoing a standard BF. Outcomes included change in symptoms, physiology, patient satisfaction and quality of life. Results: On intention to treat, patients in both protocols showed significant improvement in symptom scores and the magnitude did not differ between groups. Impact on quality of life, satisfaction and control over bowel movements improved in both protocols, but satisfaction improved to a greater extent in the standard BF protocol ( p = 0.009). Physiological parameters were unchanged after BF apart from improvement in rectal sensation in the standard BF group compared to abbreviated BF ( p ⩽ 0.002). Conclusions: Abbreviated anorectal BF offered to patients travelling from far away was not different to a standard BF in providing substantial, at least short term, improvements in symptoms of constipation and faecal incontinence, quality of life and feeling of control over bowel movements. Refinement of the standard BF protocol according to individual patient phenotypes and desired outcomes warrants further study in order to maximize efficacy and improve access for patients