Citations

Objective Over half of patients with IBS have either diarrhoea (IBS-D) or a mixed stool pattern (IBS-M). The relative efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies is unclear in the absence of head-to-head trials. We conducted a network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty. Design We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov through January 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies (alosetron, eluxadoline, ramosetron and rifaximin) in adults with IBS-D or IBS-M. Trials included in the analysis reported a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of all pharmacological therapies were reported as a pooled relative risk with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested. Treatments were ranked according to their p score. Results We identified 18 eligible RCTs (seven alosetron, five ramosetron, two rifaximin and four eluxadoline), containing 9844 patients. All were superior to placebo for the treatment of IBS-D or IBS-M at 12 weeks, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endpoint for trials in IBS. Alosetron 1 mg twice daily was ranked first for efficacy, based on the FDA-recommended composite endpoint of improvement in both abdominal pain and stool consistency, effect on global symptoms of IBS and effect on stool consistency. Ramosetron 2.5µg once daily was ranked first for effect on abdominal pain. Total numbers of adverse events were significantly greater with alosetron 1 mg twice daily and ramosetron 2.5µg once daily, compared with placebo. Rifaximin 550 mg three times daily ranked first for safety. Constipation was significantly more common with all drugs, except rifaximin 550 mg three times daily. Conclusion In a network meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacological therapies for IBS-D and IBS-M, we found all drugs to be superior to placebo, but alosetron and ramosetron appeared to be the most effective.

Linked ContentThis article is linked to Ford et al and Sun et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15001 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15230.

Summary Background Irritable bowel syndrome ( IBS ) is a chronic functional bowel disorder. Disturbances in the gastrointestinal microbiome may be involved in its aetiology. Aim To perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in IBS . Methods MEDLINE , EMBASE , and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to July 2017). Randomised controlled trials ( RCT s) recruiting adults with IBS , comparing prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics or antibiotics with placebo or no therapy were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk ( RR ) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval ( CI ). Continuous data were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI . Results The search identified 4017 citations. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics were sparse. Fifty‐three RCT s of probiotics, involving 5545 patients, were eligible. Particular combinations of probiotics, or specific species and strains, appeared to have beneficial effects on global IBS symptoms and abdominal pain, but it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions about their efficacy. There were five trials of similar design that used rifaximin in non‐constipated IBS patients, which was more effective than placebo ( RR of symptoms persisting = 0.84; 95% CI 0.79‐0.90). Adverse events were no more common with probiotics or antibiotics. Conclusions Which particular combination, species or strains of probiotics are effective for IBS remains, for the most part, unclear. Rifaximin has modest efficacy in improving symptoms in non‐constipated IBS .

OBJECTIVES: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional bowel disorder that is thought to be due to a disorder of brain–gut function. Drugs acting centrally, such as antidepressants, and psychological therapies may, therefore, be effective. METHODS: We updated a previous systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to July 2017). Trials recruiting adults with IBS, which compared antidepressants versus placebo, or psychological therapies versus control therapy or “usual management” were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The search strategy identified 5316 citations. Fifty-three RCTs, reported in 51 separate articles, were eligible for inclusion: 17 compared antidepressants with placebo, 35 compared psychological therapies with control therapy or “usual management”, and one compared both psychological therapy and antidepressants with placebo. Four of the trials of psychological therapies, and one of the RCTs of antidepressants, were identified since our previous meta-analysis. The RR of IBS symptoms not improving with antidepressants versus placebo was 0.66 (95% CI 0.57–0.76), with similar treatment effects for both tricyclic antidepressants and SSRIs, although with heterogeneity between RCTs of the latter ( I 2 = 49%, P = 0.07). The RR of symptoms not improving with psychological therapies was 0.69 (95% CI 0.62–0.76). Cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, multi-component psychological therapy, hypnotherapy, and dynamic psychotherapy were all beneficial when data from two or more RCTs were pooled. There was significant heterogeneity between studies ( I 2 = 69%, P < 0.001) and significant funnel plot asymmetry. There were also issues regarding trial design, including lack of blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressants are efficacious in reducing symptoms in IBS patients. Psychological therapies also appear to be effective treatments for IBS, although there are limitations in the quality of the evidence, and treatment effects may be overestimated as a result.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a disorder of the brain-gut axis; the pathophysiological mechanisms include altered colonic motility, bile acid metabolism, neurohormonal regulation, immune dysfunction, alterations in the epithelial barrier and secretory properties of the gut. This article reviews the mechanisms, efficacy, and safety of current pharmacotherapy, and medications that are in phase III trials for the treatment of IBS. There remains a significant unmet need for effective treatments—particularly for the pain component of IBS—although the introduction of drugs directed at secretion, motility and a non-absorbable antibiotic provide options for the bowel dysfunction in IBS.

Objective: Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in Europe and North America. Alarm features are used to prioritise access to urgent investigation, but there is little information concerning their utility in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was carried out to assess the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features in predicting colorectal cancer. Primary or secondary care-based studies in unselected cohorts of adult patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to October 2007). The main outcome measures were accuracy of alarm features or statistical models in predicting the presence of colorectal cancer after investigation. Data were pooled to estimate sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to predefined criteria. Results: Of 11 169 studies identified, 205 were retrieved for evaluation. Fifteen studies were eligible for inclusion, evaluating 19 443 patients, with a pooled prevalence of colorectal carcinoma of 6% (95% CI 5% to 8%). Pooled sensitivity of alarm features was poor (5% to 64%) but specificity was >95% for dark red rectal bleeding and abdominal mass, suggesting that the presence of either rules the diagnosis of colorectal cancer in. Statistical models had a sensitivity of 90%, but poor specificity. Conclusions: Most alarm features had poor sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma, whilst statistical models performed better in terms of sensitivity. Future studies should examine the utility of dark red rectal bleeding and abdominal mass, and concentrate on maximising specificity when validating statistical models.