Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility最新文献

Background/aims: This study aims to evaluate the effects of acute codeine administration on primary and secondary esophageal peristalsis in patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM).

Methods: Eighteen IEM patients (8 women; mean age 37.8 years, range 23-64 years) were enrolled in the study. The patients underwent high-resolution manometry exams, consisting of 10 single wet swallows, multiple rapid swallows, and ten 20 mL rapid air injections to trigger secondary peristalsis. All participants completed 2 separate sessions, including acute administration of codeine (60 mg) and placebo, in a randomized order.

Results: Codeine significantly increased the distal contractile integral (566 ± 81 mmHg∙s∙cm vs 247 ± 36 mmHg∙s∙cm, P = 0.001) and shortened distal latency (5.7 ± 0.2 seconds vs 6.5 ± 0.1 seconds, P < 0.001) for primary peristalsis compared with these parameters after placebo treatment. The mean total break length decreased significantly after codeine treatment compared with the length after placebo (P = 0.003). Codeine significantly increased esophagogastric junction-contractile integral (P = 0.028) but did not change the 4-second integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.794). Codeine significantly decreased the frequency of weak (P = 0.039) and failed contractions (P = 0.009), resulting in increased frequency of normal primary peristalsis (P < 0.136). No significant differences in the ratio of impaired multiple rapid swallows inhibition and parameters of secondary peristalsis were detected.

Conclusions: In IEM patients, acute administration of codeine increases contraction vigor and reduces distal latency of primary esophageal peristalsis, but has no effect on secondary peristalsis. Future studies are required to further elucidate clinical relevance of these findings, especially in the setting of gastroesophageal reflux disease with IEM.

Background/aims: The incidence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been increasing recently. The role of regulatory T cells (Tregs) and correlations with other inflammatory cells in EoE remain unknown. We aim to clarify the role of Tregs and their correlations with inflammatory cells in EoE patients.

Methods: Biopsies from controls and EoE patients before and after treatments were analyzed. Eosinophil infiltration was evaluated by hematoxylin and eosin staining. Immunohistochemical staining was performed to examine infiltration of T cells, Tregs, and mast cells. Gene expressions of chemokines were evaluated by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

Results: Tregs and mast cells were increased in the esophageal epithelial layers of EoE patients. After treatments, Tregs and mast cells were decreased when histologic remission was achieved. Infiltration of Tregs correlated significantly with numbers of eosinophils and mast cells. Filaggrin mRNA was decreased in patients with EoE before treatment and upregulated after treatment, even when histologic remission was not achieved.

Conclusions: Tregs were increased in esophageal epithelium of patients with EoE, and correlated with mast cell infiltration.

Background/aims: Eating is the major synchronizer of gastrointestinal motility and secretions. The present study aims to evaluate the interplay between self-perceived constipation severity (CS) and colonic response to eating in constipated patients according to the phenotype.

Methods: We included 387 consecutive outpatients complaining of Rome IV chronic idiopathic constipation. Likert scales for CS, abdominal pain severity, bloating severity, depression and anxiety assessment, total and segmental colonic transit time (CTT), and colonic transit response to eating (CTRE) were performed in all patients.

Results: Of the 387 patients included (49.7 ± 16.4 years), 320 (83%) were female, 203 had irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), 184 as functional constipation (FC), and 283 had defecation disorders (DD). The female gender was characterized by increased bloating severity (P = 0.011) and decreased Bristol stool form (P = 0.002). In IBS-C and FC patients, CS was related with bloating severity (P < 0.001 in both groups) and total CTT (P = 0.007 in IBS-constipation, P = 0.040 in FC). In IBS-C patients, CS was also associated with abdominal pain severity (P = 0.003) and Bristol stool form (P = 0.004). In contrast, in FC, CS was only related to left CTRE (P = 0.006), and in patients with DD, CS was associated with total CTT (P < 0.001) and left CTRE (P = 0.002).

Conclusion: Colonic transit response to eating was not associated to CS in IBS-C patients, but left CTRE was associated with constipation severity in FC and DD patients.

Background/aims: To evaluate the efficacy of quadruple-coated probiotics (gQlab) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), focusing on sex differences and IBS subtypes.

Methods: One hundred and nine Rome III-diagnosed IBS patients were randomized into either a gQlab or placebo group and received either gQlab or a placebo for 4 weeks. Participants replied to questionnaires assessing compliance, symptoms, and safety. Fecal samples were collected at 0 and 4 weeks to measure the probiotic levels using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and to perform metagenomic analysis via 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing. The primary endpoint was the change in the overall IBS symptoms after 4 weeks of treatment.

Results: Ninety-two subjects (47 and 45 in the gQlab and placebo groups, respectively) completed the study protocol. At week 4, there was a higher relief of the overall IBS symptoms in the gQlab group (P = 0.005). The overall IBS symptom improvement was statistically significant (P = 0.017) in female patients of the gQlab group compared with the placebo group. Among the IBS subtypes, constipation-predominant IBS patients showed significant relief of the overall IBS symptoms (P = 0.002). At week 4, the fecal microbiome profiles between the 2 groups did not differ, but the qPCR levels of Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus helveticus, Bifidobacterium longum, and Bifidobacterium breve were increased in the gQlab group (P < 0.05 by repeated measures ANOVA).

Conclusions: gQlab administration can improve the overall IBS symptoms, especially in female and constipation-predominant IBS patients. Further research is necessary to clarify the pathophysiology behind sex-related treatment responses in IBS patients.

Background/aims: Esophageal manometry is the gold standard for esophageal motility evaluation. High-resolution esophageal manometry with impedance (HRIM) allows concurrent assessment of bolus transit and manometry. Inconsistencies between concomitant impedance and manometry data pose a clinical dilemma and has not yet been addressed. We aim to assess interpretation trends of HRIM data among gastroenterologists worldwide.

Methods: A cross-sectional study using an anonymous survey was conducted among gastroenterologists worldwide. Statistical analysis was performed to compare responses between providers.

Results: We received responses from 107 gastroenterologists (26 countries). Most were adult providers (69, 64.5%), and most (77, 72.0%) had > 5 years of experience. Impedance was found to be helpful by 83 (77.6%) participants, but over 30% reported inconsistencies between impedance and manometry data. With incomplete bolus clearance and normal manometry 41 (38.7%) recommended observation, 41 (38.7%) recommended 24-hours pH-impedance, and 16 (15.1%) recommended prokinetics. With abnormal manometry and complete bolus clearance, 60 (57.1%) recommended observation while 18 (17.1%) recommended 24-hours pH impedance and 15 (14.3%) recommended prokinetics. A significant difference was found between providers from different continents in treating cases with discrepancy between impedance and manometry findings (P < 0.001). No significant differences were seen in responses between adult versus pediatric providers and between providers with different years of experience.

Conclusions: There is no consensus on interpreting HRIM data. Providers' approaches to studies with inconsistencies between manometry and impedance data vary. There is an unmet need for guidelines on interpreting impedance data in HRIM studies.

Background/aims: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the symptomatic response rate to antibiotics in patients with small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). Similarly, we performed a meta-analysis on the symptomatic response to antibiotics in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients with and without SIBO.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials and prospective studies reporting dichotomous outcomes were included.

Results: There were 6 studies included in the first meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of antibiotics to placebo or no antibiotic. This included 196 patients, of whom 101 received antibiotics and 95 received placebo or no antibiotics. Significantly more patients improved with antibiotics (relative risk [95% CI] = 2.46 [1.33-4.55], P = 0.004). There were 4 studies included in the analysis comparing symptomatic response rates in IBS patients with or without SIBO with 266 IBS patients, of whom 172 had SIBO and 94 did not. The pooled response rate for symptomatic response was 51.2% in the SIBO group vs 23.4% in the no SIBO group, respectively. Significantly more IBS patients with SIBO responded to antibiotics compared to those without SIBO (relative risk [95% CI] = 2.07 [1.40-3.08], P = 0.0003).

Conclusions: Antibiotics appear to be efficacious in treating SIBO, although small sample sizes and poor data quality limit this interpretation. Symptomatic response rates also appear to be higher in IBS patients with SIBO. This may be the first example of precision medicine in IBS as opposed to our current empiric treatment approach. Large-multicenter studies are needed to verify the results.

Background/aims: Prokinetic agents and neuromodulators are among the treatment options for functional dyspepsia (FD), but their comparative efficacy is unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy of mosapride controlled-release (CR) and nortriptyline in patients with FD after 4 weeks of treatment.

Methods: Participants with FD were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive mosapride CR (mosapride CR 15 mg and nortriptyline placebo) or nortriptyline (mosapride CR placebo and nortriptyline 10 mg) in double-placebo, double-blinded, randomized controlled, parallel clinical study. The primary endpoint was defined as the proportion of patients with overall dyspepsia improvement after 4 weeks treatment. The secondary endpoints were changes in individual symptom scores, anxiety, depression, and quality of life.

Results: One hundred nine participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility, and 54 in the mosapride CR group and 50 in the nortriptyline group were included in the modified intention-to-treat protocol. The rate of overall dyspepsia improvement was similar between groups (53.7% vs 54.0%, P = 0.976). There was no difference in the efficacy of mosapride CR and nortriptyline in a subgroup analysis by FD subtype (59.3% vs 52.5% in postprandial distress syndrome, P = 0.615; 44.4% vs 40.0% in epigastric pain syndrome, P = > 0.999; 50.0% vs 59.1% in overlap, P = 0.565; respectively). Both treatments significantly improved anxiety, depression, and quality of life from baseline.

Conclusion: Mosapride CR and nortriptyline showed similar efficacy in patients with FD regardless of the subtype. Both treatments could be equally helpful for improving quality of life and psychological well-being while also relieving dyspepsia.

Background/aims: It has been suggested that STW5 (Iberogast) reduces heartburn symptoms in patients with functional dyspepsia, but underlying mechanisms of action are unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate whether STW5 affects esophageal sensitivity or esophageal motility, thereby reducing occurrence and perception of reflux events.

Methods: We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in patients with functional dyspepsia (Rome IV) and reflux symptoms. After 4 weeks of treatment with either placebo or STW5, patients were studied with an esophageal acid perfusion test and ambulatory 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring.

Results: A total of 18 patients (7 men, median age 54, range [19-76]), were included in the study. Although we found no statistical difference in our primary outcome the total Reflux Disease Questionnaire score 2.33 (0.25-4.33) vs 2.67 (1.17-4.00), P = 0.347, "gastroesophageal reflux disease" and "regurgitation" subscale scores were lower after STW5 treatment compared to placebo (P = 0.049 and P = 0.007). There was no statistical difference in number of reflux events, acid exposure time and acid sensitivity scores between STW5 and placebo. In a subgroup analysis of patients with pH-metry confirmed gastroesophageal reflux disease, treatment with STW5 significantly reduced the total number of acidic reflux events (P = 0.028). Moreover, in patients with reflux esophagitis, the median lag time to acid perception increased after STW5 treatment (P = 0.042).

Conclusions: We found some indications pointing towards a beneficial effect of STW5 on reflux symptoms in dyspeptic patients, with reduction of esophageal hypersensitivity as a potential underlying mechanism. Our findings will have to be confirmed in larger studies.