The clinical overlap between functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome based on Rome III criteria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Epidemiological studies suggest considerable overlap between functional dyspepsia (FD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). To date, no surveys have been performed to investigate the clinical overlap between these two disorders using Rome III criteria. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence and risk factors for the overlap of FD and IBS based on Rome III criteria in a large clinical sample.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consecutive patients at the general gastroenterology outpatient clinic were requested to complete a self-report questionnaire. FD and IBS were defined by Rome III criteria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Questionnaires were returned by 3014 patients (52.8% female, 89% response rate). FD-IBS overlap was observed in 5.0% of the patients, while 15.2% and 10.9% of the patients were classified as FD alone and IBS alone, respectively. Compared with non-IBS patients, the odds ratio of having FD among IBS patients was 2.09 (95% CI: 1.68–2.59). Patients with FD-IBS overlap had higher severity scores for the postprandial fullness symptom (2.35 ± 1.49 vs. 1.72 ± 1.59, P < 0.001) and overall FD symptom (6.65 ± 2.88 vs. 5.82 ± 2.76, P = 0.002) than those with FD alone. The only independent risk factor for FD-IBS overlap vs. FD alone was the presence of postprandial fullness symptom (OR 2.67, 95% CI: 1.34–5.31).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Clinical overlap of FD and IBS according to Rome III criteria is very common. One risk factor for FD-IBS overlap is the presence of postprandial fullness symptom. This study provides clues for future pathophysiological studies of FD and IBS.</p

The clinical overlap between functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome based on Rome III criteria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Epidemiological studies suggest considerable overlap between functional dyspepsia (FD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). To date, no surveys have been performed to investigate the clinical overlap between these two disorders using Rome III criteria. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence and risk factors for the overlap of FD and IBS based on Rome III criteria in a large clinical sample.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consecutive patients at the general gastroenterology outpatient clinic were requested to complete a self-report questionnaire. FD and IBS were defined by Rome III criteria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Questionnaires were returned by 3014 patients (52.8% female, 89% response rate). FD-IBS overlap was observed in 5.0% of the patients, while 15.2% and 10.9% of the patients were classified as FD alone and IBS alone, respectively. Compared with non-IBS patients, the odds ratio of having FD among IBS patients was 2.09 (95% CI: 1.68–2.59). Patients with FD-IBS overlap had higher severity scores for the postprandial fullness symptom (2.35 ± 1.49 vs. 1.72 ± 1.59, P < 0.001) and overall FD symptom (6.65 ± 2.88 vs. 5.82 ± 2.76, P = 0.002) than those with FD alone. The only independent risk factor for FD-IBS overlap vs. FD alone was the presence of postprandial fullness symptom (OR 2.67, 95% CI: 1.34–5.31).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Clinical overlap of FD and IBS according to Rome III criteria is very common. One risk factor for FD-IBS overlap is the presence of postprandial fullness symptom. This study provides clues for future pathophysiological studies of FD and IBS.</p

Herbal medicine in the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy of herbal medicines (HMs) for functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia (FD) and functional constipation (FC) is controversial. A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to determine their effectiveness for FGIDs. METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases till July 2019 with English language restriction: The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PUBMED. Randomized double-blind controlled trials of HMs compared with placebo or conventional pharmacological drugs for adult FGIDs patients were included. RESULTS: In total, 49 trials involving 7396 participants with FGIDs were included. The risk of bias was low in 9, unclear in 36, and high in 4 trials. More than 33 different herbal formulae were tested. HMs demonstrated statistically significant benefits for symptom improvement compared with placebo in 46 trials (RR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.48-1.88). When compared with conventional pharmacological therapy in 5 trials, HMs were found to be non-inferior (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.18). The number of trials with regards to FD, IBS and FC were 19, 23 and 7 respectively. Subgroup analysis found that HMs were better than placebo in alleviating symptoms for FD (RR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.32-1.69), IBS (RR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.32-1.97) and FC (RR = 3.83, 95% CI 2.26-6.50). HMs tended to have more patients with adverse events than placebo, but similar to conventional pharmacological drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a positive signal for HMs as a potentially well-tolerated and effective treatment for FGIDs, deserving further examination in high-quality trials.status: publishe

Chicago Classification Update (v4.0): Technical review on diagnostic criteria for hypercontractile esophagus

Hypercontractile esophagus (HE), defined by the Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0) as 20% or more hypercontractile peristalsis (Distal Contractile Integral >8000 mmHg·s·cm) on high‐resolution manometry (HRM), is a heterogeneous disorder with variable clinical presentations and natural course, leading to management challenges. An update on the diagnostic criteria for clinically relevant HE was needed. Literature on HE was extensively reviewed by the HE subgroup of the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) Working Group and statements relating to the diagnosis of HE were ranked according to the RAND UCLA Appropriateness methodology by the Working Group, and the quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. An overall emphasis of the CCv4.0 is on clinically relevant esophageal dysmotility, and thus it is recommended that an HE diagnosis requires both conclusive manometric diagnosis and clinically relevant symptoms of dysphagia and non‐cardiac chest pain. The Working Group also recognized the subtypes of HE, including single‐peaked, multi‐peaked contractions (Jackhammer esophagus), and hypercontractile lower esophageal sphincter. However, there are no compelling data currently for formally subdividing HE to these subgroups in clinical practice.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167781/1/nmo14115.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167781/2/nmo14115_am.pd