"It doesn't do any harm, but patients feel better": a qualitative exploratory study on gastroenterologists' perspectives on the role of antidepressants in inflammatory bowel disease

Background: Interest in psychological factors in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has increased in recent years. It has even been proposed that treating psychological co-morbidities with antidepressants may control disease activity and improve quality of life. Despite this, there is no data on gastroenterologists' attitudes to, and experiences with, antidepressant therapy in patients with IBD. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 gastroenterologists associated with metropolitan teaching hospitals. Qualitative content analysis was used to examine their responses. Results: Seventy-eight percent of gastroenterologists had treated IBD patients with antidepressants for pain, depression and/or anxiety, and insomnia. Antidepressants were reported to be useful in improving psychosocial well-being, quality of life, and self-management of the disease by patients. However, in this group of gastroenterologists, there appears to be skepticism towards psychological disorders themselves or antidepressant therapy having a central role in either the causation of IBD or its clinical course. Nevertheless, these gastroenterologists were receptive to the idea of conducting a trial of the role of antidepressants in IBD. Conclusion: While the majority of specialists have treated IBD patients with antidepressants, there is considerable skepticism with regard to efficacy of antidepressive therapy or the role of psychological factors in the outcome of IBD patients.Antonina A Mikocka-Walus, Deborah A Turnbull, Nicole T Moulding, Ian G Wilson, Jane M Andrews and Gerald J Holtman

Probiotics, gut microbiota and their influence on host health and disease

The gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of mammals hosts a high and diverse number of different microorganisms, known as intestinal microbiota. Many probiotics were originally isolated from the GIT, and they were defined by the FAO/WHO as live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host. Probiotics exert their beneficial effects on the host through four main mechanisms: interference with potential pathogens, improvement of barrier function, immunomodulation and production of neurotransmitters, and their host targets vary from the resident microbiota to cellular components of the gut-brain axis. However, in spite of the wide array of beneficial mechanisms deployed by probiotic bacteria, relatively few effects have been supported by clinical data. In this regard, different probiotic strains have been effective in Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhea or Inflammatory Bowel Disease for instance. The aim of this review was to compile the molecular mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of probiotics, mainly through their interaction with the intestinal microbiota and with the intestinal mucosa. The specific benefits discuss in this paper include among others those elicited directly through dietary modulation of the human gut microbiota.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reservedResearch in our lab is funded by Grants AGL2013-44039R and AGL2013-44761-P from the Spanish “Plan Estatal de I+D+I.” Part of the authors is also partially funded by the [15VI013] Contract-Programme from the University of Vigo and the Agrupamento INBIOMED from DXPCTSUG-FEDER unha maneira de facer Europa (2012/273). B. S. was recipient of a Ramón y Cajal postdoctoral contract from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness

Non-invasive diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia, recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anaemia, idiopathic thrombocytopaenia purpura, and colorectal adenomas. The confirmatory diagnosis of H pylori is by endoscopic biopsy, followed by histopathological examination using haemotoxylin and eosin (H & E) stain or special stains such as Giemsa stain and Warthin-Starry stain. Special stains are more accurate than H & E stain. There is significant uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of H pylori. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of urea breath test, serology, and stool antigen test, used alone or in combination, for diagnosis of H pylori infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic people, so that eradication therapy for H pylori can be started. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Science Citation Index and the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database on 4 March 2016. We screened references in the included studies to identify additional studies. We also conducted citation searches of relevant studies, most recently on 4 December 2016. We did not restrict studies by language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (urea breath test using isotopes such as13C or14C, serology and stool antigen test) against the reference standard (histopathological examination using H & E stain, special stains or immunohistochemical stain) in people suspected of having H pylori infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the references to identify relevant studies and independently extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed meta-analysis by using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to estimate and compare SROC curves. Where appropriate, we used bivariate or univariate logistic regression models to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities. MAIN RESULTS: We included 101 studies involving 11,003 participants, of which 5839 participants (53.1%) had H pylori infection. The prevalence of H pylori infection in the studies ranged from 15.2% to 94.7%, with a median prevalence of 53.7% (interquartile range 42.0% to 66.5%). Most of the studies (57%) included participants with dyspepsia and 53 studies excluded participants who recently had proton pump inhibitors or antibiotics.There was at least an unclear risk of bias or unclear applicability concern for each study.Of the 101 studies, 15 compared the accuracy of two index tests and two studies compared the accuracy of three index tests. Thirty-four studies (4242 participants) evaluated serology; 29 studies (2988 participants) evaluated stool antigen test; 34 studies (3139 participants) evaluated urea breath test-13C; 21 studies (1810 participants) evaluated urea breath test-14C; and two studies (127 participants) evaluated urea breath test but did not report the isotope used. The thresholds used to define test positivity and the staining techniques used for histopathological examination (reference standard) varied between studies. Due to sparse data for each threshold reported, it was not possible to identify the best threshold for each test.Using data from 99 studies in an indirect test comparison, there was statistical evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy between urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology and stool antigen test (P = 0.024). The diagnostic odds ratios for urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test were 153 (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.7 to 316), 105 (95% CI 74.0 to 150), 47.4 (95% CI 25.5 to 88.1) and 45.1 (95% CI 24.2 to 84.1). The sensitivity (95% CI) estimated at a fixed specificity of 0.90 (median from studies across the four tests), was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) for urea breath test-13C, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.94) for urea breath test-14C, 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) for serology, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.90) for stool antigen test. This implies that on average, given a specificity of 0.90 and prevalence of 53.7% (median specificity and prevalence in the studies), out of 1000 people tested for H pylori infection, there will be 46 false positives (people without H pylori infection who will be diagnosed as having H pylori infection). In this hypothetical cohort, urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test will give 30 (95% CI 15 to 58), 42 (95% CI 30 to 58), 86 (95% CI 50 to 140), and 89 (95% CI 52 to 146) false negatives respectively (people with H pylori infection for whom the diagnosis of H pylori will be missed).Direct comparisons were based on few head-to-head studies. The ratios of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were 0.68 (95% CI 0.12 to 3.70; P = 0.56) for urea breath test-13C versus serology (seven studies), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.56; P = 0.84) for urea breath test-13C versus stool antigen test (seven studies). The 95% CIs of these estimates overlap with those of the ratios of DORs from the indirect comparison. Data were limited or unavailable for meta-analysis of other direct comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people without a history of gastrectomy and those who have not recently had antibiotics or proton ,pump inhibitors, urea breath tests had high diagnostic accuracy while serology and stool antigen tests were less accurate for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.This is based on an indirect test comparison (with potential for bias due to confounding), as evidence from direct comparisons was limited or unavailable. The thresholds used for these tests were highly variable and we were unable to identify specific thresholds that might be useful in clinical practice.We need further comparative studies of high methodological quality to obtain more reliable evidence of relative accuracy between the tests. Such studies should be conducted prospectively in a representative spectrum of participants and clearly reported to ensure low risk of bias. Most importantly, studies should prespecify and clearly report thresholds used, and should avoid inappropriate exclusions

Acid inhibition on the first day of dosing : comparison of four proton pump inhibitors

RESUME Introduction: Les inhibiteurs de la pompe à protons sont actuellement considérés comme les médicaments de choix pour le traitement des affections peptiques comme l'ulcère gastroduodénal et l'oesophagite de reflux. La rapidité, ainsi que le degré d'inhibition de la sécrétion gastrique acide sont importants pour le contrôle optimal des symptômes ainsi que pour le traitement de ces affections. But : Le but principal de cette étude a été de comparer, chez les sujets asymptomatiques non infectés par H. pylori, par pH-métrie intragastrique de 24 heures, la rapidité et la durée de l'action antisécrétoire de doses uniques de rabéprazole 20 mg, d'oméprazole capsule 20 mg, d'oméprazole en comprimé MUPS (« Multiple Unit Pellet System ») 20 mg, de pantoprazole 40 mg et de lansoprazole 30 mg, respectivement. Matériel et méthodes : Cette étude, effectuée en double aveugle et randomisée, a été conduite de manière croisée chez 18 sujets H. pylori-négatifs. Une pH-métrie de 24 heures a été effectuée le jour de l'administration du médicament (dose unique de rabéprazole 20 mg, de lansoprazole 30mg, de pantoprazole 40 mg, d'oméprazole capsule 20 mg, d'oméprazole MUPS comprimé 20mg, ou de placebo). Résultats : Le pH intragastrique médian (3.4 vs. 2.9, 2.2, 1.9 et 1.8, respectivement; p≤ 0.03) et le temps avec un pH supérieur à 4 pendant les 24 heures suivant la prise du médicament (8.0 heures vs. 7.4, 4.9, 2.9, et 3.0, respectivement; p≤ 0.003) ont été statistiquement plus élevés avec le rabéprazole qu'avec le lansoprazole, le pantoprazole, l'oméprazole capsule, l'oméprazole comprimé MUPS, ou le placebo. Les valeurs du pH pendant les périodes diurnes et nocturnes étaient plus hautes avec le rabeprazole et le lansoprazole qu'avec le pantoprazole, l'oméprazole capsule, et l'oméprazole comprimé MUPS (p≤0.04). Conclusion : Le rabéprazole s'est montré le plus efficace de tous les inhibiteurs de pompe à protons étudiés durant le premier jour de l'administration du médicament. SUMMARY Background: Rapid and consistent acid suppression on the first day of dosing may be important in treating acid-related disorders. Aim: To compare the antisecretory activity and onset of action of single doses of rabeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, omeprazole capsule, omeprazole multiple unit pellet system (MUPS) tablet and placebo in healthy Helicobacter pylori-negative subjects. Methods: This cross-over, double-blind, randomized study was performed in 18 H. pylori-negative subjects. Twenty-four-hour intragastric pH monitoring was performed on the day of treatment (once-daily dose of rabeprazole 20 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg, omeprazole capsule 20 mg, omeprazole MUPS tablet 20 mg or placebo). Results: The intragastric pH (3.4) and time at pH > 4 during the 24 h post-dose (8.0 h) were significantly greater with rabeprazole than with lansoprazole, pantoprazole, omeprazole capsule, omeprazole MUPS tablet or placebo (P ≤ 0.04 for rabeprazole vs. the others). Daytime and night-time pH values were higher with rabeprazole and lansoprazole than with pantoprazole, omeprazole capsule and omeprazole MUPS tablet (P ≤ 0.04). Conclusion: Rabeprazole was the most potent acid inhibitor of all the proton pump inhibitors tested during the first day of dosing