0
selected
-
1.
Acacia fiber or probiotic supplements to relieve gastrointestinal complaints in patients with constipation-predominant IBS: a 4-week randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled intervention trial.
JanssenDuijghuijsen, L, van den Belt, M, Rijnaarts, I, Vos, P, Guillemet, D, Witteman, B, de Wit, N
European journal of nutrition. 2024
Abstract
PURPOSE To date, no adequate treatment for irritable bowel syndrome with predominant constipation complaints (IBS-C) is available. Fibers with prebiotic properties and probiotic compounds have shown promise in relieving IBS-C-related complaints. We aimed to determine the effects of a 4-week intervention with either an Acacia fiber (AF) with prebiotic properties or a probiotic Bifidobacterium Lactis (BLa80) supplement, compared to a control supplement, on stool pattern, IBS symptoms and Quality of Life (QoL), in IBS-C individuals. METHODS A parallel, double-blind, randomized controlled trial involving 180 subjects meeting the ROME IV criteria for IBS-C was conducted. Following a 4-week observation period, subjects received either AF (10 g), Probiotic BLa80 (4 g; 2 × 1011 CFU/g) or a maltodextrin placebo (10 g) daily for 4 weeks. Subjects reported daily information on stool pattern and gastrointestinal complaints. Before and after each 4-week period, questionnaires on symptom severity, constipation symptoms, anxiety and depression and QoL were completed. Stool mass was measured for 5-days before and after the intervention. RESULTS Stool frequency significantly improved in the AF and Probiotic BLa80 groups compared to placebo (P < 0.001, P = 0.02, respectively). Probiotic BLa80 showed a significant reduction in IBS symptom severity (P = 0.03), for AF a trend towards decreased constipation symptoms (PAC-SYM, P = 0.10) was observed. No significant changes in stool consistency, stool mass or QoL measures were observed between the AF and Probiotic BLa80 compared to placebo. CONCLUSION Daily dietary supplementation with Acacia fiber and probiotic supplements might help IBS-C patients by relieving IBS-related complaints compared to a placebo supplement. REGISTRATION NUMBER OF CLINICAL TRIAL The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04798417: Study Details | Nutrition to Relieve IBS Constipation | ClinicalTrials.gov.
-
2.
Extrinsic wheat fibre consumption enhances faecal bulk and stool frequency; a randomized controlled trial.
de Wit, N, Esser, D, Siebelink, E, Fischer, A, Sieg, J, Mes, J
Food & function. 2019;(2):646-651
Abstract
The beneficial effect of wheat fibres on faecal bulk and stool pattern has mainly been observed with intact wheat fibres. This study investigates the effect of extrinsic wheat fibre (VITACEL® wheat fibre), which can be easily incorporated in many food products, on faecal bulk, stool pattern, gastrointestinal complaints, satiety and food liking. In a double-blind randomized crossover trial, healthy male volunteers received meal boxes for 10 days, containing various food products enriched with extrinsic wheat fibre (∼20 grams of additional fibre per day) or control food products containing conventional levels of fibre with similar taste, appearance and caloric values. Meal boxes were integrated in the normal dietary pattern. Stool frequency, stool consistency, gastrointestinal complaints, satiety and product liking were assessed daily, and the last 5 days of each intervention, participants collected all their faeces to analyse faecal bulk. We found that consumption of extrinsic wheat fibre-enriched products significantly enhanced faecal bulk; faecal wet and dry weight showed a 1.41 ± 0.1 and 1.55 ± 0.1 times increase compared to control, respectively (p < 0.01). Extrinsic wheat fibre intervention furthermore increased stool frequency (1.3 ± 0.1 defecations per day compared to 1.1 ± 0.1 defecations per day during control diet, p < 0.05), but did not affect stool consistency, satiety, gastrointestinal complaints or product liking. So, increased consumption of extrinsic wheat fibre enhances faecal bulk and stool frequency. As this extrinsic wheat fibre can be easily incorporated in many food products without affecting appearance or taste, it might facilitate the increase of overall fibre intake and subsequently improve (intestinal) health.
-
3.
Systematic review: probiotics in the management of lower gastrointestinal symptoms - an updated evidence-based international consensus.
Hungin, APS, Mitchell, CR, Whorwell, P, Mulligan, C, Cole, O, Agréus, L, Fracasso, P, Lionis, C, Mendive, J, Philippart de Foy, JM, et al
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2018;47(8):1054-1070
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
The role of the gut microbiota in health and disease is far reaching and there is a growing body of evidence on the therapeutic potential of probiotics in gastrointestinal (GI) disease. Patients with GI disease present with a variety of symptoms and current evidence suggests probiotics may play a role in ameliorating these adverse symptoms. The purpose of this review is to update the previous systematic review and incorporate new findings on the role of probiotics in adult patients presenting with a variety of GI symptoms. Based on the updated evidence, this study confirms the finding that specific probiotics are beneficial for certain lower GI problems. According to this review, the author deems this study useful for clinicians when recommending probiotics to patients.
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2013, a systematic review and Delphi consensus reported that specific probiotics can benefit adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and other gastrointestinal (GI) problems. AIM: To update the consensus with new evidence. METHODS A systematic review identified randomised, placebo-controlled trials published between January 2012 and June 2017. Evidence was graded, previously developed statements were reassessed by an 8-expert panel, and agreement was reached via Delphi consensus. RESULTS A total of 70 studies were included (IBS, 34; diarrhoea associated with antibiotics, 13; diarrhoea associated with Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy, 7; other conditions, 16). Of 15 studies that examined global IBS symptoms as a primary endpoint, 8 reported significant benefits of probiotics vs placebo. Consensus statements with 100% agreement and "high" evidence level indicated that specific probiotics help reduce overall symptom burden and abdominal pain in some patients with IBS and duration/intensity of diarrhoea in patients prescribed antibiotics or H. pylori eradication therapy, and have favourable safety. Statements with 70%-100% agreement and "moderate" evidence indicated that, in some patients with IBS, specific probiotics help reduce bloating/distension and improve bowel movement frequency/consistency. CONCLUSIONS This updated review indicates that specific probiotics are beneficial in certain lower GI problems, although many of the new publications did not report benefits of probiotics, possibly due to inclusion of new, less efficacious preparations. Specific probiotics can relieve lower GI symptoms in IBS, prevent diarrhoea associated with antibiotics and H. pylori eradication therapy, and show favourable safety. This study will help clinicians recommend/prescribe probiotics for specific symptoms.
-
4.
Systematic review: probiotics in the management of lower gastrointestinal symptoms in clinical practice -- an evidence-based international guide.
Hungin, AP, Mulligan, C, Pot, B, Whorwell, P, Agréus, L, Fracasso, P, Lionis, C, Mendive, J, Philippart de Foy, JM, Rubin, G, et al
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2013;(8):864-86
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence suggests that the gut microbiota play an important role in gastrointestinal problems. AIM: To give clinicians a practical reference guide on the role of specified probiotics in managing particular lower gastrointestinal symptoms/problems by means of a systematic review-based consensus. METHODS Systematic literature searching identified randomised, placebo-controlled trials in adults; evidence for each symptom/problem was graded and statements developed (consensus process; 10-member panel). As results cannot be generalised between different probiotics, individual probiotics were identified for each statement. RESULTS Thirty seven studies were included; mostly on irritable bowel syndrome [IBS; 19 studies; treatment responder rates: 18-80% (specific probiotics), 5-50% (placebo)] or antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD; 10 studies). Statements with 100% agreement and 'high' evidence levels indicated that: (i) specific probiotics help reduce overall symptom burden and abdominal pain in some IBS patients; (ii) in patients receiving antibiotics/Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy, specified probiotics are helpful as adjuvants to prevent/reduce the duration/intensity of AAD; (iii) probiotics have favourable safety in patients in primary care. Items with 70-100% agreement and 'moderate' evidence were: (i) specific probiotics help relieve overall symptom burden in some patients with diarrhoea-predominant IBS, and reduce bloating/distension and improve bowel movement frequency/consistency in some IBS patients and (ii) with some probiotics, improved symptoms have led to improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS Specified probiotics can provide benefit in IBS and antibiotic-associated diarrhoea; relatively few studies in other indications suggested benefits warranting further research. This study provides practical guidance on which probiotic to select for a specific problem.
-
5.
Irritable bowel syndrome.
de Wit, N, Rubin, G, Jones, R
Clinical evidence. 2005;(13):556-63
-
6.
Bulking agents, antispasmodic and antidepressant medication for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.
Quartero, AO, Meineche-Schmidt, V, Muris, J, Rubin, G, de Wit, N
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2005;(2):CD003460
Abstract
BACKGROUND Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common health problem, often presenting in primary care as well as in internal medicine and gastroenterology outpatient clinics. Therapeutic options are dominated by drug therapies but there is uncertainty about their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of bulking agents, antispasmodic and antidepressant medication for the treatment of IBS. SEARCH STRATEGY A computer assisted search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Library was performed for the years 1966-2001; local and national databases were searched in 10 European countries. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials comparing bulking agents, antispasmodic or antidepressant medications with a placebo, in IBS patients over 12 years of age. Only studies published as a full paper were included. No language criterion was applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The search identified 687 studies, 66 of which fulfilled all eligibility criteria. After removal of cross-over studies that did not report separately on the first phase, data from 40 studies remained for analysis. Relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) along with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all subgroups. The number needed to treat (NNT) was also calculated where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS Forty-one study reports from 40 studies, comprising 78 comparisons, were analysed. These included 11 reports on bulking agents, 6 on antidepressants, and 24 on spasmolytics.BULKING AGENTS Three studies comprising 159 patients reported a dichotomous outcome for relief of abdominal pain. The pooled RR using a random effects model was 1.22 (95% CI 0.86 - 1.73). Three studies comprising 128 patients reported a continuous outcome for relief of abdominal pain. Using the random effects model, the SMD was 0.68 (95% CI -0.86 - 2.33). Nine studies comprising 482 patients reported a dichotomous outcome for global assessment of improvement. The pooled RR was 1.09 (95% CI 0.78 - 1.50). Five studies comprising 253 patients reported a dichotomous outcome for improvement of symptom score. The pooled RR using a random effects model was 0.93 (95% CI 0.56 - 1.54). Two studies comprising 70 patients reported a continuous outcome for improvement of symptom score; the SMD using a fixed effects model was -0.44 (95% CI -1.20 - 0.31). SPASMOLYTIC AGENTS Eleven studies comprising 1260 patients reported a dichotomous outcome for relief of abdominal pain. The pooled RR using a random effects model was 1.34 (95% CI 1.13 - 1.59; RD=0.17, 95% CI 0.06 -0.28; NNT=6, 95% CI 4 - 15). Seven studies comprising 467 patients reported a continuous outcome for relief of abdominal pain. Using a fixed effects model the pooled SMD was -0.65 (95% CI -0.94 to -0.35). Sixteen studies comprising 1236 patients reported a dichotomous outcome for global assessment of improvement. The pooled RR using a random effects model was 1.42 (95% CI 1.17 - 1.72; RD=0.20, 95% CI 0.09 -0.30; NNT=5, 95% CI 3 - 11). One study comprising 34 patients reported a dichotomous variable for improvement of symptom score. The RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.96 - 1.85). Three studies reported a continuous outcome for improvement of symptom score; two studies comprising 66 patients could be pooled. Using a fixed effects model, the SMD was -0.37 (95% CI -0.85 - 0.12). ANTIDEPRESSANTS Two studies comprising 81 patients reported a dichotomous outcome for relief of abdominal pain. Using the random effects model, the pooled RR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.33 - 2.12). Two studies comprising 101 patients reported a continuous outcome for relief of abdominal pain. The SMD using a random effects model was -0.53 (95% CI -2.29 - 1.23). Four studies comprising 241 patients reported a dichotomous variable for global assessment of improvement. The pooled RR was 1.16 (95% CI 0.78 - 1.73). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence for efficacy of drug therapies for IBS is weak. Although there is evidence of benefit for antispasmodic drugs for abdominal pain and global assessment of symptoms; it is unclear whether anti-spasmodic subgroups are individually effective. There is no clear evidence of benefit for antidepressants or bulking agents. The physician should be aware that global assessment is a construct containing various dimensions. For each individual, these will have a different weighting and treatment should be aimed at the most debilitating symptom. Stool problems are by definition part of the IBS symptom complex. Bulking agents may improve constipation and can be used empirically, but should be evaluated at an early stage for individual benefit. Future research should pay attention to study methodology and the use of valid outcome measures.