Oduyebo, Ibironke

SummaryBackgroundIn primary bile acid diarrhoea, feedback by farnesoid X receptor (FXR) and fibroblast growth hormone 19 (FGF19) on hepatic bile acid production is impaired.AimsTo evaluate the safety, mechanisms and efficacy of negative feedback by FXR activation with tropifexor, a non‐bile acid FXR agonist, in patients with primary bile acid diarrhoea.MethodsIn this double‐blind, multicentre, randomised, cross‐over study, patients received tropifexor 60 µg or placebo once daily for 14 days in each of two treatment periods. Primary objectives included tropifexor safety and tolerability, and on stool frequency and form. Other assessments included pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic measures, biochemical markers and gastrointestinal transit.ResultsTwenty patients (tropifexor 60 µg/placebo [N = 10]; placebo/tropifexor 60 µg [N = 10]) were enrolled. Adverse event rates were lower with tropifexor vs placebo (52.9% vs 73.7%). No patient had pruritus during tropifexor intake. There were no significant differences in stool frequency, stool form or loperamide use between treatments. Tropifexor increased FGF19 and decreased 7α‐hydroxy‐4‐cholesten‐3‐one (C4) levels for up to 8 h. Plasma tropifexor concentrations peaked at 5 hours post‐dose on days 1 and 12. At day 12, tropifexor caused reduction in peak total bile acid concentration (33%, P = 0.032) and exposure (36%, P = 0.005). Moreover, tropifexor showed a significant increase in ascending colon half‐emptying time (P = 0.036).ConclusionsTropifexor 60 µg once daily had acceptable safety and tolerability. Changes in FGF19 and C4 showed effective target engagement; however, higher doses may be required to observe stool frequency changes. Slowing of ascending colon emptying suggests therapeutic potential of tropifexor in patients with primary bile acid diarrhoea.ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02713243.

Abstract Background Nausea, vomiting, and constipation ( OIC ) are common adverse effects of acute or chronic opioid use. Naloxegol (25 mg) is an approved peripherally active mu‐opiate opioid receptor antagonist. Aim To compare the effects on pan‐gut transit of treatment with codeine, naloxegol, or combination in healthy volunteers. Methods We conducted a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, single‐center, parallel‐group study in 72 healthy opioid‐naïve adults, randomized to: codeine (30 mg q.i.d.), naloxegol (25 mg daily), codeine and naloxegol, or matching placebo. During 3 days of treatment, we measured gastric emptying ( GE ) T 1/2 , colonic filling at 6 hours ( CF 6), colonic geometric center at 24 and 48 hours, and ascending colon emptying ( ACE ) T 1/2 . Key Results Participants were 59.7% women, median BMI 25.0 kg/m 2 , and median age 33.8 years. Codeine significantly retarded GE T 1/2, CF 6, overall colonic transit, and ACE T 1/2 . There was significant difference ( P = .026) in GE T 1/2 between codeine (144.0 min [ IQR 110.5‐238.6]) and naloxegol (95.5 min [89.1‐135.4]). There was a significant overall group difference in CF 6 ( P = .023), with significant difference ( P = .019) between codeine (11.0% [0.0‐45.0]) and naloxegol (51% [18.8‐76.2]). However, no significant differences were found between codeine‐treated participants concomitantly receiving placebo or naloxegol. Conclusions and Inferences Short‐term administration of naloxegol (25 mg) in healthy, opioid‐naïve volunteers does not reverse the retardation of gastric, small bowel, or colonic transit induced by acute administration of codeine. Further studies with naloxegol at higher dose are warranted to assess the ability to reverse the retardation of transit caused by acute administration of codeine in opioid‐naïve subjects.

Aprepitant, an NK1 receptor antagonist, is approved for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced or postoperative emesis by blocking NK1 receptors in the brain stem vomiting center. The effects of NK1 receptors on gastric functions and postprandial symptoms in humans are unclear; a single, crossover study did not show a significant effect of aprepitant on gastrointestinal transit. Our aim was to compare, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (12 healthy volunteers per group), the effects of aprepitant vs. placebo on gastric emptying of solids (by scintigraphy) with a 320-kcal meal, gastric volumes (GVs; fasting and accommodation by single photon emission-computed tomography ), satiation [maximum tolerated volume (MTV)], and symptoms after a dyspeptogenic meal of Ensure. Aprepitant (125 mg on day 1, followed by 80 mg on days 2–5) or placebo, one tablet daily, was administered for 5 consecutive days. Statistical analysis was by unpaired rank sum test, adjusted for sex difference and body mass index. To assess treatment effects on symptoms, we incorporated MTV in the model. Aprepitant increased fasting, postprandial, and accommodation GV and tended to increase volume to fullness and MTV by ~200 kcal. However, aprepitant increased aggregate symptoms, nausea, and pain scores after ingestion the MTV of Ensure. There was no significant effect of aprepitant on gastric half-emptying time of solids. We conclude that NK1 receptors are involved in the control of GV and in determining postprandial satiation and symptoms. Further studies of the pharmacodynamics and therapeutic role of NK1 receptor antagonists in patients with gastroparesis and dyspepsia are warranted. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Aprepitant increases fasting, postprandial, and accommodation gastric volumes. Aprepitant increases volume to fullness and maximum tolerated volume during a nutrient drink test. NK1 receptors are involved in the control of gastric volume and in determining postprandial satiation and symptoms.

The contributions of gastric emptying (GE) and gastric accommodation (GA) to satiation, satiety, and postprandial symptoms remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the relationships between GA or GE with satiation, satiety, and postprandial symptoms in healthy overweight or obese volunteers (total n = 285, 73% women, mean BMI 33.5 kg/m 2 ): 26 prospectively studied obese, otherwise healthy participants and 259 healthy subjects with previous similar GI testing. We assessed GE of solids, gastric volumes, calorie intake at buffet meal, and satiation by measuring volume to comfortable fullness (VTF) and maximum tolerated volume (MTV) by using Ensure nutrient drink test (30 ml/min) and symptoms 30 min after MTV. Relationships between GE or GA with satiety, satiation, and symptoms were analyzed using Spearman rank ( r s ) and Pearson ( R) linear correlation coefficients. We found a higher VTF during satiation test correlated with a higher calorie intake at ad libitum buffet meal ( r s = 0.535, P < 0.001). There was a significant inverse correlation between gastric half-emptying time (GE T 1/2 ) and VTF ( r s = −0.317, P < 0.001) and the calorie intake at buffet meal ( r s = −0.329, P < 0.001), and an inverse correlation between GE Tlag and GE25% emptied with VTF ( r s = −0.273, P < 0.001 and r s = −0.248, P < 0.001, respectively). GE T 1/2 was significantly associated with satiation (MTV, R = −0.234, P < 0.0001), nausea ( R = 0.145, P = 0.023), pain ( R = 0.149, P = 0.012), and higher aggregate symptom score ( R = 0.132, P = 0.026). There was no significant correlation between GA and satiation, satiety, postprandial symptoms, or GE. We concluded that GE of solids, rather than GA, is associated with postprandial symptoms, satiation, and satiety in healthy participants. NEW & NOTEWORTHY A higher volume to comfortable fullness postprandially correlated with a higher calorie intake at ad libitum buffet meal. Gastric emptying of solids is correlated to satiation (volume to fullness and maximum tolerated volume) and satiety (the calorie intake at buffet meal) and symptoms of nausea, pain, and aggregate symptom score after a fully satiating meal. There was no significant correlation between gastric accommodation and either satiation or satiety indices, postprandial symptoms, or gastric emptying.

BACKGROUNDThere is a glaring lack of published evidence‐based strategies to improve the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient experience scores on the physician domain. Strategies that have been used are resource intensive and difficult to sustain.OBJECTIVEWe hypothesized that prompting providers to assess their own etiquette‐based practices every 2 weeks over the course of 1 year would improve patient experience on the physician domain.DESIGNRandomized controlled trial.SETTING4 acute care hospitals.PARTICIPANTSHospitalists.INTERVENTIONHospitalists were randomized to the study or the control arm. The study arm was prompted every 2 weeks for 12 months to report how frequently they engaged in 7 best‐practice bedside etiquette behaviors. Control arm participants received similarly worded questions on quality improvement behaviors.MEASUREMENTProvider experience scores were calculated from the physician HCAHPS and Press Ganey survey provider items.RESULTSPhysicians reported high rates of etiquette‐based behavior at baseline, and this changed modestly over the study period. Self‐reported etiquette behaviors were not associated with experience scores. The difference in difference analysis of the baseline and postintervention physician experience scores between the intervention arm and the control arm was not statistically significant (P = 0.71).CONCLUSIONIn this 12‐month study, biweekly reflection and reporting of best‐practice bedside etiquette behaviors did not result in significant improvement on physician domain experience scores. It is likely that hospitalists' self‐assessment of their bedside etiquette may not reflect patient perception of these behaviors. Furthermore, hospitalists may be resistant to improvement in this area since they rate themselves highly at baseline.

Several chemical and molecular factors in the intestine are reported to be altered and to have a potentially significant role in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), particularly in IBS with diarrhea. These include bile acids; short-chain fatty acids; mucosal barrier proteins; mast cell products such as histamine, proteases, and tryptase; enteroendocrine cell products; and mucosal mRNAs, proteins, and microRNAs. This article reviews the current knowledge and unanswered questions in the pathobiology of the chemical and molecular factors in IBS. Evidence continues to point to significant roles in pathogenesis of these chemical and molecular mechanisms, which may therefore constitute potential targets for future research and therapy. However, it is still necessary to address the interaction between these factors in the gut and to appraise how they may influence hypervigilance in the central nervous system in patients with IBS.