Stacy B. Menees

The Efficacy and Safety of Rifaximin for the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES:Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) affects 10–15% of the population, and treatment options are limited. Rifaximin is a minimally absorbed antibiotic that has shown efficacy in IBS patients. The objective of our study was to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of available randomized, placebo controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of rifaximin in patients with IBS.METHODS:We performed a systematic literature search of multiple online electronic databases regardless of language. Inclusion criteria entailed randomized, placebo controlled trials and IBS defined by accepted symptom-based criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of combined studies for the primary and secondary outcomes using a random-effects model based on the DerSimonian and Laird method to reflect both within- and between study variability. We assessed heterogeneity using χ2 test and the inconsistency index statistic (I2). Significant heterogeneity was defined as I2 ≥25%. Meta-regression was performed using generalized linear mixed-effects model and study as random effects to estimate the summary OR adjusting for covariate differences across studies and treatment group. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot analysis.RESULTS:Systematic review identified 13,700 citations. Eighteen were deemed to be potentially relevant, of which five articles met eligibility. Meta-analysis found rifaximin to be more efficacious than placebo for global IBS symptom improvement (OR=1.57; 95% CI=1.22, 2.01; therapeutic gain=9.8%; number needed to treat (NNT)=10.2), with mild heterogeneity (P=0.25, I2=26%). For the key secondary outcome of bloating, raw data were available for four studies. Rifaximin was significantly more likely to improve bloating than placebo (OR=1.55; 95% CI=1.23–1.96; therapeutic gain=9.9%; NNT=10.1), with no significant heterogeneity (P=0.27, I2=23%). We found that studies with older patients and more females demonstrated higher response rates, which was consistent regardless of treatment group. In addition, studies with higher cumulative dose tended to report a higher response rate. Of the covariates evaluated, we found age to be most predictive of response, with a correlation coefficient of 0.97 between aggregate response rate and mean age in the placebo groups. Although studies with higher cumulative dose tended to show increased response rates, this was also seen consistently in both the treated and placebo groups. Adverse effects were similar among patients receiving rifaximin or placebo in all studies. The most common adverse events (AEs) (≤10%) with rifaximin were headache, upper respiratory infection, nausea, nasopharygitis, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Serious AEs were rare (<1%) and similar with rifaximin and placebo.CONCLUSIONS:Rifaximin proved more effective than placebo for global symptoms and bloating in IBS patients. The modest therapeutic gain was similar to that yielded by other currently available therapies for IBS. AEs were similar between rifaximin and placebo.

Women patients' preference for women physicians is a barrier to colon cancer screening

BACKGROUND The preference of women patients for women physicians has been shown in many specialties. Women patients awaiting a lower endoscopy have been shown to have a preference for women endoscopists. The reasons for this preference and the strength of this preference have not been studied in the primary care setting. METHODS A questionnaire was given to female patients who were waiting for primary care appointments at 4 offices. Patients reported sociodemographic characteristics, experiences with colorectal cancer (CRC), barriers to CRC screening, gender preference of their physician, the significance, and reasons for this preference. RESULTS A total of 202 women patients aged 40 to 70 years (mean 53 years) completed the questionnaire. Of these patients, 43% preferred a woman endoscopist, and of these, 87% would be willing to wait >30 days for a woman endoscopist, and 14% would be willing to pay more for one. The most common reason (in 75%) for this gender preference was embarrassment. Univariate analysis revealed that gender of the primary care physician (PCP), younger patient age, current employment, and no previous history of colonoscopy were predictors of preference for a woman endoscopist. Of these variables, only female gender of the PCP (OR 2.84: 95% CI[1.49, 5.40]) and employment (OR 2.4: 95% CI[1.23, 4.67]) were positive predictors for a woman endoscopist preference by multivariable analysis; 5% stated that they would not undergo a colonoscopy unless guaranteed a woman endoscopist. The sole independent factor associated with adherence to screening was PCP recommendation (OR 2.93: 95% CI[1.63, 5.39]). CONCLUSIONS Women patients frequently prefer a woman endoscopist, and this preference is reported as being strong enough to delay the procedure and to incur personal expense. It is an absolute barrier to endoscopy according to 5% in this subset of women surveyed. Interventions must be made in the primary care setting to address this issue and to increase the participation of women patients in CRC screening.

A meta-analysis of the utility of C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin to exclude inflammatory bowel disease in adults with IBS.

Objectives:Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is viewed as a diagnosis of exclusion by most providers. The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the utility of C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin to distinguish between patients with IBS and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and healthy controls (HCs).Methods:A systematic online database search was performed. Included studies were prospective, adult, diagnostic cohort studies with any of the four tests. The means and s.d. values of biomarker logarithms were estimated based on studies that gave medians and either confidence intervals for the median, interquartile ranges, or ranges. We used a Naive Bayes approach to estimate the probability of being a HC, having IBS, or having IBD based on the biomarker values.Results:Systematic review identified 1,252 citations. After cross-referencing medical subject headings, detailed evaluation identified 140 potentially relevant journal articles/abstracts for CRP, ESR, calprotectin, and lactoferrin of which 4, 4, 8, and 2 fulfilled our inclusion criteria, respectively. None of the biomarkers reliably distinguished between IBS and healthy controls. At a CRP level of ≤0.5 or calprotectin level of ≤40 μg/g, there was a ≤1% probability of having IBD. Individual analysis of ESR and lactoferrin had little clinical utility.Conclusion:CRP and calprotectin of ≤0.5 or 40, respectively, essentially excludes IBD in patients with IBS symptoms. The addition of CRP and calprotectin to symptom-based criteria may improve the confident diagnosis of IBS.

Economic Cost of Fecal Incontinence

BACKGROUND: Despite its prevalence and deleterious impact on patients and families, fecal incontinence remains an understudied condition. Few data are available on its economic burden in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify per patient annual economic costs associated with fecal incontinence. DESIGN: A mail survey of patients with fecal incontinence was conducted in 2010 to collect information on their sociodemographic characteristics, fecal incontinence symptoms, and utilization of medical and nonmedical resources for fecal incontinence. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective and included both direct and indirect (ie, productivity loss) costs. Unit costs were determined based on standard Medicare reimbursement rates, national average wholesale prices of medications, and estimates from other relevant sources. All cost estimates were reported in 2010 US dollars. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a single tertiary care institution. PATIENTS: The analysis included 332 adult patients who had fecal incontinence for more than a year with at least monthly leakage of solid, liquid, or mucous stool. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the per patient annual economic costs associated with fecal incontinence. RESULTS: The average annual total cost for fecal incontinence was

Does Colonoscopy Cause Increased Ulcerative Colitis Symptoms

4110 per person (median =

The Impact of Bowel Cleansing on Follow-Up Recommendations in Average-Risk Patients With a Normal Colonoscopy

1594; interquartile range,

Agents that act luminally to treat diarrhoea and constipation

517–

Factors associated with symptom severity in women presenting with fecal incontinence.

5164). Of these costs, direct medical and nonmedical costs averaged

Patient compliance and suboptimal bowel preparation with split-dose bowel regimen in average-risk screening colonoscopy

2353 (median,

Rates of self-reported urinary, gastrointestinal, and pain comorbidities in women with vulvar lichen sclerosus

1176; interquartile range,