Bile acid diarrhea - as bad as it gets?

Urinary acid-base excretion deciphers high acid load from colonic bicarbonate loss in intestinal failure patients with ileocolonic anastomosis - Guidance for composition of parenteral support

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Acid-base disturbances are common in short bowel (SB) patients due to increased intestinal bicarbonate loss. However, the resulting systemic acid load has not been quantified. Base excess is used to monitor metabolic acid-base disturbances but inadequately reflects the acid load. Our aim was to investigate the systemic acid/base load in SB-patients to obtain quantitative estimates to guide the composition of parenteral support.

METHODS

We calculated total acid load in SB patients by summing 24-h urinary net acid excretion (NAE) and the provision of base equivalents in parenteral support. We then compared differences among anatomical SB-types: jejunostomy (SB-J), jejunocolostomy (SB-JC), and jejunoileostomy (SB-JIC). 47 urine samples from 34 SB patients were analyzed for bicarbonate (HCO3-), ammonium (NH4+), and titratable acid (TA) concentrations. NAE was calculated as (TA + NH4+) - HCO3-. Mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used to statistically examine differences between SB-types and associations with parenteral nutrition and NAE. A healthy cohort served as control.

RESULTS

In comparison to SB-J, SB-JC patients had a 4.1 mmoL/l lower base excess (95% CI: -6.3 to -1.8) and an 84.5 mmol/day higher total acid load (CI: 41.3 to 127.7). There were no significant differences between SB-JIC and SB-J regarding base excess, NAE, or total acid load. Higher amounts of infused acetate, sodium, and chloride, but not the acetate/chloride ratio, were associated with lower NAE and higher base excess.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to increased colonic bicarbonate loss, patients with SB-JC have a ∼4.4-fold higher acid load than healthy controls. The ion transport mechanisms mediating this bicarbonate loss from the remaining colon need further experimental investigation. NAE could be a useful tool to adjust base infusion in SB.

Getting the BS out of Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea (IBS-D): Let's Make a Diagnosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) is diagnosed when chronic symptoms of abdominal pain accompany loose stools, and alarm features, such as fever, anemia, rectal bleeding, and weight loss are absent. This combination of symptoms makes structural disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease or cancer, unlikely, but does not exclude other conditions that cause these symptoms. The question is whether making a "positive diagnosis" of IBS-D based on symptoms alone and instituting therapy based on that diagnosis still makes sense.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clinical observations suggest that at least two-thirds of cases of IBS-D can be explained by three mechanisms: a) food intolerances (~ 30-40%), b) bile acid diarrhea (~ 20-30%), and c) disturbed microbial flora (~ 15-20%). Other conditions that are less frequent but can cause IBS symptoms or be confused with IBS include: celiac disease, microscopic colitis, mastocytosis/mast cell activation, and drug side-effects. Many cases of IBS-D have a discoverable, underlying cause that can direct therapy more efficiently.

Recent developments in diagnosing bile acid diarrhea

INTRODUCTION

Bile acid diarrhea (BAD) commonly causes chronic diarrhea. Symptoms may be mistaken for disorders of gut brain interaction. Due to the lack of widely available diagnostic tests and poor recognition of BAD, there is a delay in diagnosis leading to increased healthcare system burden and decreased patient quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

A thorough review of the literature was conducted using PubMed for articles on the biological functions of bile acids, pathophysiology and management of BAD, but focusing on diagnostic testing including 75SeHCAT retention, 7αC4, FGF-19, fecal bile acids, and single stool tests. This narrative review discusses available modalities focusing on noninvasive stool and serum testing that are more widely available and show good sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of BAD. 75SeHCAT retention is not available in many countries. Alternative diagnostic tests include total and primary fecal bile acid (BA) excretion in 48-hour collection or a single stool sample, serum7αC4 >46 or 52.5 ng/mL, and combination of single stool and serum 7αC4 ±watery stools (Bristol Stool Form Scale 6-7).

EXPERT OPINION

Given the ease of serum and single stool sample acquisition and diagnostic advances, clinical practice should embrace positive diagnosis, rather than BAS therapeutic trial. BAD needs to be considered in diverse gastrointestinal diseases.

The Gluten-Free Diet for Celiac Disease: Critical Insights to Better Understand Clinical Outcomes

The gluten-free diet (GFD) remains a complex paradigm in managing celiac disease (CeD) in children and adults, and there are many reasons why GFD adherence should be strict to improve outcomes. However, this is a challenging task for patients, since they need to have access to quality healthcare resources that facilitate optimal GFD adherence. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the GFD, tackling coexisting nutritional deficiencies, and dealing with complex situations, such as seronegative CeD or non-responsive CeD, all require the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. The short- and long-term follow-up of CeD patients should preferably be performed by a combined Gastroenterology and Nutrition service with well-defined quality standards and the multidisciplinary involvement of physicians, nurses, dietitians, and psychologists. Nutritional advice and counseling by an experienced dietitian can reduce the costs associated with long-term follow-up of CeD patients. Likewise, psychological interventions may be essential in specific scenarios where implementing and sustaining a lifelong GFD can cause a significant psychological burden for patients. This manuscript aims to provide guidelines to improve clinical practice in the follow-up and monitoring of CeD patients and provide information on the nutritional risks of an ill-advised GFD. Clinicians, biochemists, food technologists, dietitians, and psychologists with a global view of the disease have been involved in its writing.