Pohl, Daniel

Myths and misconceptions about the evaluation and treatment of constipation persist. Many widely prevalent misconceptions about laxatives, specifically stimulant laxatives, interfere with the effective management of constipation. Although some of these myths and misconceptions have been dispelled in recent years, there is additional room for improving the awareness and understanding of the pathophysiology of constipation, the mechanisms of action and the efficacy and safety of available therapies. An evolution in our understanding of pathophysiology and the availability of new treatments requires that primary care practitioners be better positioned to treat this common disorder that reduces patients’ quality of life and negatively impacts the healthcare system. This review defines constipation and elucidates various factors that contribute to its aetiology, including lifestyle, dietary habits, medications and underlying medical conditions. This review addresses and refutes common myths and misconceptions about constipation, such as the belief that regular bowel movements must occur daily or the use of laxatives leads to dependence. This review also highlights the importance of distinguishing between normal and abnormal bowel habits and emphasises the need for individualised management approaches to address constipation effectively. Finally, the review discusses different classes of laxatives, dispelling misconceptions about their safety, efficacy and potential for misuse, with a specific focus on stimulant laxatives. In summary, this review enhances awareness and knowledge of this prevalent disorder, provides evidence-based insights into common myths and misconceptions surrounding constipation and promotes more informed decision-making regarding constipation and the use of laxatives.

Constipation is a common problem, affects 15% of the population, and is often self-diagnosed and self-managed. Over the past 3 decades, there have been significant advances in our understanding and management of chronic constipation, with the emerging recognition that occasional constipation (OC) is another subtype that falls outside current classifications. The purpose of this review was to describe the process of developing and proposing a new definition for OC based on expert consensus and taking into consideration the multifactorial nature of the problem such as alterations in bowel habit that include stool frequency and difficulty with stool passage, perception of the sufferer, duration of symptoms, and potential responsiveness to treatment. Leading gastroenterologists from 5 countries met virtually on multiple occasions through an online digital platform to discuss the problem of OC and recommended a practical, user-friendly definition: “OC can be defined as intermittent or occasional symptomatic alteration(s) in bowel habit. This includes a bothersome reduction in the frequency of bowel movements and/or difficulty with passage of stools but without alarming features. Bowel symptoms may last for a few days or a few weeks, and episodes may require modification of lifestyle, dietary habits and/or use of over-the-counter laxatives or bulking agents to restore a satisfactory bowel habit.” Prospective studies are required to validate this definition and determine OC prevalence in the community. This review highlights current knowledge gaps and could provide impetus for future research to facilitate an improved understanding of OC and development of evidence-based management guidelines.

Introduction: Linaclotide is approved for adults with moderate-to-severe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with constipation (IBS-C). Linaclotide is not indicated for weight loss or for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); it is contraindicated in patients with mechanical bowel obstruction (MBO). Some patients with obesity or eating disorders (ED) may use linaclotide off-label for weight loss or as a laxative. Objectives: To describe the use of linaclotide in clinical practice, including patients with potential for off-label use or misuse. Methods: Post-authorization safety study conducted in three databases from the linaclotide launch date to 2017: the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the United Kingdom (UK), the Information System for Research in Primary Care database in Spain and the linked Patient, Prescription and Causes of Death Registries in Sweden. Cohorts of patients were identified as having IBS using diagnostic and treatment codes; IBS subtypes were identified using symptoms and treatment codes; patients with obesity, ED, MBO, and IBD were identified using diagnostic codes or body mass index. Results: There were 1319, 1981, and 5081 linaclotide users from the United Kingdom, Spain, and Sweden with a median age of 45, 57, and 51 years, respectively; most were females. In the United Kingdom, Spain, and Sweden, respectively: 59.0%, 60.3%, and 31.3% of linaclotide users had an IBS diagnosis recorded, and among those, 68.8%, 61.3%, and 92.7% were classified as IBS-C. The proportions of linaclotide users considered at risk for potential off-label use for weight loss or as a laxative were 17.1%, 29.7%, and 1.7%, and the proportions of users considered at risk of misuse due to a history of MBO or IBD were 3.5%, 4.6%, and 5.7% in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Sweden, respectively. Conclusions: Potential linaclotide off-label use and misuse appears limited, as evidenced by the small sizes of the patient subgroups at risk for off-label use and misuse.

Abstract Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high‐resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty‐two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two‐years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.

The functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) measures luminal dimensions using impedance planimetry, performed most often during sedated upper endoscopy. Mechanical properties of the esophageal wall and opening dynamics of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) can be objectively evaluated in esophageal motor disorders, eosinophilic esophagitis, esophageal strictures, during esophageal surgery and in postsurgical symptomatic states. Distensibility index, the ratio of EGJ cross sectional area to intraballoon pressure, is the most useful FLIP metric. Secondary peristalsis from balloon distension can be displayed topographically as repetitive anterograde or retrograde contractile activity in the esophageal body, similar to high-resolution manometry. Real-time interpretation and postprocessing of FLIP metadata can complement the identification of esophageal outflow obstruction and achalasia, especially when findings are inconclusive from alternate esophageal tests in symptomatic patients. FLIP can complement the diagnosis of achalasia when manometry and barium studies are inconclusive or negative in patients with typical symptoms. FLIP can direct adequacy of disruption of the EGJ in achalasia when used during and immediately after myotomy and pneumatic dilation. Lumen diameter measured using FLIP in eosinophilic esophagitis and in complex strictures can potentially guide management. An abbreviated modification of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to determine the quality of available evidence and recommendations regarding FLIP utilization. FLIP metrics that are diagnostic or suggestive of an abnormal motor pattern and metrics that define normal esophageal physiology were developed by consensus and are described in this review.

Abstract Although neurogastroenterology and motility ( NGM ) disorders are some of the most frequent disorders encountered by practicing gastroenterologists, a structured competency‐based training curriculum developed by NGM experts is lacking. The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society ( ANMS ) and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility ( ESNM ) jointly evaluated the components of NGM training in North America and Europe. Eleven training domains were identified within NGM , consisting of functional gastrointestinal disorders, visceral hypersensitivity and pain pathways, motor disorders within anatomic areas (esophagus, stomach, small bowel and colon, anorectum), mucosal disorders (gastro‐esophageal reflux disease, other mucosal disorders), consequences of systemic disease, consequences of therapy (surgery, endoscopic intervention, medications, other therapy), and transition of pediatric patients into adult practice. A 3‐tiered training curriculum covering these domains is proposed here and endorsed by all NGM societies. Tier 1 NGM knowledge and training is expected of all gastroenterology trainees and practicing gastroenterologists. Tier 2 knowledge and training is appropriate for trainees who anticipate NGM disorder management and NGM function test interpretation being an important part of their careers, which may require competency assessment and credentialing of test interpretation skills. Tier 3 knowledge and training is undertaken by trainees interested in a dedicated NGM career and may be restricted to specific domains within the broad NGM field. The joint ANMS and ESNM task force anticipates that the NGM curriculum will streamline NGM training in North America and Europe and will lead to better identification of centers of excellence where Tier 2 and Tier 3 training can be accomplished.

Abstract Background Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a complex condition with multiple factors contributing to its aetiology and pathophysiology. Aetiologically these include genetics, life‐time events and environment, and physiologically, changes in motility, central processing, visceral sensitivity, immunity, epithelial permeability and gastrointestinal microflora. Such complexity means there is currently no specific reliable biomarker for IBS, and thus IBS continues to be diagnosed and classified according to symptom based criteria, the Rome Criteria. Carefully phenotyping and characterisation of a ‘large’ pool of IBS patients across Europe and even the world however, might help identify sub‐populations with accuracy and consistency. This will not only aid future research but improve tailoring of treatment and health care of IBS patients. Purpose The aim of this position paper is to discuss the requirements necessary to standardize the process of selecting and phenotyping IBS patients and how to organise the collection and storage of patient information/samples in such a large multi‐centre pan European/global study. We include information on general demographics, gastrointestinal symptom assessment, psychological factors, quality of life, physiological evaluation, genetic/epigenetic and microbiota analysis, biopsy/blood sampling, together with discussion on the organisational, ethical and language issues associated with implementing such a study. The proposed approach and documents selected to be used in such a study was the result of a thoughtful and thorough four‐year dialogue amongst experts associated with the European COST action BM1106 GENIEUR ( www.GENIEUR.eu ).