Good News about BAD

Functional bowel disorders with diarrhoea: Clinical guidelines of the United European Gastroenterology and European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility

Irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS‐D) and functional diarrhoea (FDr) are the two major functional bowel disorders characterized by diarrhoea. In spite of their high prevalence, IBS‐D and FDr are associated with major uncertainties, especially regarding their optimal diagnostic work‐up and management. A Delphi consensus was performed with experts from 10 European countries who conducted a literature summary and voting process on 31 statements. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation criteria. Consensus (defined as >80% agreement) was reached for all the statements. The panel agreed with the potential overlapping of IBS‐D and FDr. In terms of diagnosis, the consensus supports a symptom‐based approach also with the exclusion of alarm symptoms, recommending the evaluation of full blood count, C‐reactive protein, serology for coeliac disease, and faecal calprotectin, and consideration of diagnosing bile acid diarrhoea. Colonoscopy with random biopsies in both the right and left colon is recommended in patients older than 50 years and in presence of alarm features. Regarding treatment, a strong consensus was achieved for the use of a diet low fermentable oligo‐, di‐, monosaccharides and polyols, gut‐directed psychological therapies, rifaximin, loperamide, and eluxadoline. A weak or conditional recommendation was achieved for antispasmodics, probiotics, tryciclic antidepressants, bile acid sequestrants, 5‐hydroxytryptamine‐3 antagonists (i.e. alosetron, ondansetron, or ramosetron). A multinational group of European experts summarized the current state of consensus on the definition, diagnosis, and management of IBS‐D and FDr.

Cholestyramine treatment in two dogs with presumptive bile acid diarrhoea: a case report

Background

In people, bile acid diarrhoea is a prevalent complication of Crohn’s disease and diarrhoea-associated irritable bowel syndrome. Affected patients typically respond to bile acid sequestrants, such as cholestyramine, but human gastroenterologists often fail to recognize bile acid diarrhoea. Consequently, bile acid diarrhoea is regarded as an underrecognized and undertreated condition in human medicine. Due to lack of diagnostic tools, clinical response to bile acid sequestrants is often used to confirm a diagnosis of bile acid diarrhoea in people.

Several recent studies have shown that bile acid dysmetabolism also occurs in dogs with chronic enteropathies. It has further been shown that dogs with chronic enteropathies have significantly decreased expression of a bile acid transport protein in the ileum compared to healthy dogs, which correlates with faecal bile acid dysmetabolism. Consequently, in spite of the lack of reports in the literature, bile acid diarrhoea is likely to exist in dogs as well.

Case descriptions

Two dogs, an 8-year old Rottweiler and a 4.5-year old Siberian Husky were evaluated for chronic watery diarrhoea. Neither dog responded to dietary trials, probiotics, cyclosporine, faecal microbial transplantations or metronidazole. One of the dogs responded to high daily doses of corticosteroids, which were however associated with unacceptable side effects. The other dog was refractory to all standard treatment protocols, including cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Since none of the dogs responded satisfactorily to standard treatment or modulation of the intestinal microbiome, a suspicion of possible bile acid diarrhoea was raised. Treatment with cholestyramine, a bile acid sequestrant was initiated and resulted in marked improvement of faecal consistency, frequency of defecation and activity level in both dogs.

Conclusion

This report presents two dogs with presumed bile acid diarrhoea that were successfully treated with cholestyramine. Therefore, bile acid diarrhoea should be considered as a possible diagnosis in dogs with treatment-refractory chronic diarrhoea.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40575-021-00099-x.

Making the Diagnosis of Bile Acid Diarrhea

Bile acid diarrhea is a frequent, treatable cause of functional diarrhea but is difficult to diagnose when the nuclear medicine seleno-taurohomocholic acid test is unavailable. An alternative approach is testing blood for the bile acid precursor, 7α-OH-4-cholesten-3-one, which is raised with increased bile acid synthesis. A recent article has defined measurements that have high negative and positive predictive values, further exploring how they can be improved by incorporating measures such as age, stool number, fibroblast growth factor 19, or plasma sulfated bile acids. Other articles have looked at the percentage of fecal primary bile acids. Together, they promise better use of diagnostic biomarkers for this condition.

High prevalence of primary bile acid diarrhoea in patients with functional diarrhoea and irritable bowel syndrome-diarrhoea, based on Rome III and Rome IV criteria

BACKGROUND

A high prevalence of primary bile acid diarrhoea (BAD) has been reported for Rome III defined irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)-diarrhoea and functional diarrhoea. We determined whether this still applies under the contemporaneous Rome IV criteria, given that the latter characterises IBS-diarrhoea as having more frequent abdominal pain compared with previous iterations, whilst no longer recognising abdominal discomfort.

METHODS

Patients referred for a 75SeHCAT test completed a baseline questionnaire comprising, i) demographic data, ii) risk factors for BAD (inflammatory bowel disease, bowel resection, cholecystectomy, microscopic colitis, celiac disease, abdominal-pelvic radiotherapy), iii) the Rome III and IV bowel disorder questionnaire, and iv) mood and somatisation scores. A diagnosis of BAD constituted a 75SeHCAT of ≤15%, with moderate to severe disease being defined as ≤10% and ≤5%, respectively.

FINDINGS

Of 300 patients with complete dataset, 184 had no risk factors for BAD and fulfilled criteria for either IBS-diarrhoea or functional diarrhoea. The prevalence of primary BAD was 38% (n = 70/184), with almost half having moderate (n = 16) to severe (n = 17) disease. Using the Rome III criteria, the prevalence of primary BAD was 36% in IBS-diarrhoea (n = 63/173) and 64% (n = 7/11) in functional diarrhoea; p = 0.11. Using the Rome IV criteria, the prevalence of primary BAD was 38% (n = 53/139) in IBS-diarrhoea and 38% (n = 17/45) in functional diarrhoea; p = 0.97. Patients with primary BAD experienced more frequent loose stools (p = 0.01) and had a higher body mass index (p<0.0001) compared to those without BAD, but otherwise no significant differences were seen in age, gender, mood, somatisation, or abdominal pain. The presence of primary BAD in patients classified as overweight or obese was approximately 40% and 60%, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Over a third of patients with Rome IV IBS-diarrhoea or functional diarrhoea have primary BAD, similar to Rome III. We therefore recommend that, in secondary care settings, generic testing for primary BAD should be considered in patients presenting with chronic diarrhoea of presumed functional origin regardless of concomitant abdominal pain. Centres that lack tests for primary BAD, and who empirically treat instead, may consider targeting patients who are overweight or obese.