Screening for bile acid diarrhoea in suspected irritable bowel syndrome

Biomarkers for Bile Acid Malabsorption in Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A clear relationship of biological indexes between bile acid malabsorption (BAM) and diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) has not been well analyzed. This meta-analysis aimed to establish a more convenient method to diagnose BAM in IBS-D patients by comparing the differences in biomarkers between IBS-D patients and healthy people.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched for relevant case-control studies. Indicators used to diagnose BAM included 75Se-homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT), 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one(C4), fibroblast growth factor-19 and 48-hour fecal bile acid (48FBA). The rate of BAM (SeHCAT) was calculated by using a random-effect model. The levels of C4, FGF19, and 48FBA were compared, and the overall effect size was combined by a fixed effect model.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 10 relevant studies comprising 1034 IBS-D patients and 232 healthy volunteers. The pooled rate of BAM in IBS-D patients was 32% (according to SeHCAT; 95% CI: 24%-40%). The level of C4 in IBS-D patients was significantly higher than that in the control group (2.86 ng/mL; 95% CI: 1.09, 4.63); The level of FGF19 was significantly lower than that in the control group (-33.97 pg/mL; 95% CI: -51.13, -16.82); The level of 48FBA was significantly higher than that in the control group (0.059; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

The results mainly concluded serum C4 and FGF19 levels in IBS-D patients. Most of the studies have different normal cutoff points of serum C4 and FGF19 levels; the performance of each test should be further estimated. By comparing the levels of these biomarkers, BAM in patients with IBS-D could be identified more accurately, which would lead to more effective treatment.

Colonic Gene Expression and Fecal Microbiota in Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Increased Toll-like Receptor 4 but Minimal Inflammation and no Response to Mesalazine

Background/Aims

Diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) has been previously associated with evidence of immune activation and altered microbiota. Our aim is to assess the effect of the anti-inflammatory agent, mesalazine, on inflammatory gene expression and microbiota composition in IBS-D.

Methods

We studied a subset of patients (n = 43) from a previously published 12-week radomized placebo-controlled trial of mesalazine. Mucosal biopsies were assessed by immunohistochemistry and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction for a range of markers of inflammation, altered permeability, and sensory receptors including Toll-like receptors (TLRs) at randomization after treatment. All biopsy data were compared to 21 healthy controls. Patient’s stool microbiota composition was analysed through 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing.

Results

We found no evidence of increased immune activation compared to healthy controls. However, we did find increased expression of receptors in both sensory pathways and innate immune response including TLR4. Higher TLR4 expression was associated with greater urgency. TLR4 expression correlated strongly with the expression of the receptors bradykinin receptor B2, chemerin chemokine-like receptor 1, and transient receptor potential cation channel, subfamily A, member 1 as well as TLR4’s downstream adaptor myeloid differentiation factor 88. Mesalazine had minimal effect on either gene expression or microbiota composition.

Conclusions

Biopsies from a well-characterized IBS-D cohort showed no substantial inflammation. Mesalazine has little effect on gene expression and its previous reported effect on fecal microbiota associated with much greater inflammation found in inflammatory bowel diseases is likely secondary to reduced inflammation. Increased expression of TLR4 and correlated receptors in IBS may mediate a general increase in sensitivity to external stimuli, particularly those that signal via the TLR system.

New therapeutic options for IBS: the role of the first in class mixed µ- opioid receptor agonist and δ-opioid receptor antagonist (mudelta) eluxadoline

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent functional gastrointestinal disorder which represents a major cost to healthcare services. IBS-D patients represent about one-third of the IBS population and are currently treated with antispasmodics, loperamide, bile acid sequestrants and antidepressants. Alosetron and rifaximin are also available in USA, ramosetron in Japan, Korea and Thailand and ondansetron as an off-label treatment. Areas covered: This article focuses on eluxadoline, a novel pharmacological agent that has recently been approved by both the FDA and EMA for treatment of patients with IBS-D. Expert commentary: The efficacy and safety of eluxadoline in treating bowel habit alterations and pain, both in the short and long-term, make the drug a welcome addition to our therapeutic alternatives in IBS-D. Its positioning in any IBS algorithm will depend on the 'real world' prevalence of the small risk of sphincter of Oddi spasm and mild pancreatitis.

Novel pharmacological therapies for irritable bowel syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent functional gastrointestinal disorder, which represents a major cost to healthcare services. Current pharmacological treatment includes fibre supplements, antispasmodics, laxatives, loperamide and antidepressants. This article reviews the novel pharmacological treatments already or recently approved for patients with IBS-C (lubiprostone, linaclotide) and IBS-D (alosetron, ramosetron, rifaximin, eluxadoline). Furthermore, results for drugs in development (plecanatide, ibudutant and ebastine) or used in chronic constipation or for other indications, with potential application in IBS (prucalopride, elobixibat, mesalazine, ondansetron and colesevelam) are also reviewed.

Review article: bile acid diarrhoea - pathogenesis, diagnosis and management

BACKGROUND

Bile acid diarrhoea results from imbalances in the homoeostasis of bile acids in the enterohepatic circulation. It can be a consequence of ileal disease/dysfunction, associated with other GI pathology or can be idiopathic.

AIMS

To summarise the different types of bile acid diarrhoea and discuss the currently available diagnostic methods and treatments.

RESULTS

Bile acid diarrhoea is found in up to 40% of patients diagnosed as having functional diarrhoea/IBS-D, and in up to 80% of patients who have undergone ileal resection. It is likely under-diagnosed and under-treated. In idiopathic disease, errors in regulation feedback of fibroblast growth factor 19 contribute to the development of the condition. Clinical therapeutic trials for bile acid diarrhoea have been used to diagnose it, but the ⁷⁵ SeHCAT test is the primary current method. It is sensitive, specific and widely available, though not in the USA. Other diagnostic methods (such as serum measurement of the bile acid intermediate 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, or C4) have less widespread availability and documentation, and some (such as faecal measurement of bile acids) are significantly more complex and costly. First-line treatment of bile acid diarrhoea is with the bile acid sequestrant cholestyramine, which can be difficult to administer and dose due to gastrointestinal side effects. These side effects are less prominent in newer agents such as colesevelam, which may provide higher efficacy, tolerability and compliance.

CONCLUSION

Bile acid diarrhoea is common, and likely under-diagnosed. Bile acid diarrhoea should be considered relatively early in the differential diagnosis of chronic diarrhoea.

Are the definitions for chronic diarrhoea adequate? Evaluation of two different definitions in patients with chronic diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

The classical definition of chronic diarrhoea is ≥3 defecations/day, with a stool weight of more than 200 g and duration of ≥4 weeks. However, with this definition many patients with substantial symptoms and pathology will be excluded from further investigations. As a consequence other definitions have been proposed, mainly based on evaluation of the stool form.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of the classic criteria for diarrhoea in comparison with a definition based on stool consistency, using the Bristol Stool Form Scale.

METHODS

All patients were investigated with laboratory tests, upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsies, and SeHCAT test. They were asked to complete a diary recording stool frequency and consistency during a week, as well as other gastrointestinal symptoms (pain, bloating and gas).

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-nine subjects were eligible for analysis. Ninety-one had an organic cause of diarrhoea. Fifty-three patients had ≥3 loose stools/day, whereas 86 reported <3 stools/day. Ninety had a median stool consistency that was mushy or loose and 49 had harder stools. A higher proportion of subjects with an organic cause of their diarrhoea compared with subjects with a functional bowel disorder had ≥3 loose stools/day, 43/91 (47%) vs. 10/48 (21%) (p < 0.01). Similarly, more subjects with an organic cause of their diarrhoea versus patients with a functional bowel disorder had a median stool consistency that was mushy or watery, 73/91 (80%) vs. 17/48 (35%), p < 0.0001. When diarrhoea was defined according to stool form, more patients were classified correctly as having a functional disorder or organic disorder, compared with the classical definition (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Loose stools defined according to the Bristol Stool Form scale seem to be the best predictor of having an organic cause of the diarrhoea.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the prevalence of bile acid malabsorption in the irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome is a widespread disorder with a marked socioeconomic burden. Previous studies support the proposal that a subset of patients with features compatible with diarrhoea-predominant IBS (IBS-D) have bile acid malabsorption (BAM).

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of BAM in patients meeting the accepted criteria for IBS-D.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to March 2015. Studies recruiting adults with IBS-D, defined by the Manning, Kruis, Rome I, II or III criteria and which used 23-seleno-25-homotaurocholic acid (SeHCAT) testing for the assessment of BAM were included. BAM was defined as 7 day SeHCAT retention of <10%. We calculated the rate of BAM and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random effects model. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified six relevant studies comprising 908 individuals. The rate of BAM ranged from 16.9% to 35.3%. The pooled rate was 28.1% (95% CI: 22.6-34%). There was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes (Q-test χ(2)  = 17.9, P < 0.004; I(2)  = 72.1%). The type of diagnostic criteria used or study country did not significantly modify the effect.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide evidence that in excess of one quarter of patients meeting accepted criteria for IBS-D have bile acid malabsorption. This distinction has implications for the interpretation of previous studies, as well as contemporaneous clinical practice and future guideline development.