Functional Dyspepsia

This guideline presents recommendations for the evaluation and management of patients with gastroparesis. Gastroparesis is identified in clinical practice through the recognition of the clinical symptoms and documentation of delayed gastric emptying. Symptoms from gastroparesis include nausea, vomiting, early satiety, postprandial fullness, bloating, and upper abdominal pain. Management of gastroparesis should include assessment and correction of nutritional state, relief of symptoms, improvement of gastric emptying and, in diabetics, glycemic control. Patient nutritional state should be managed by oral dietary modifications. If oral intake is not adequate, then enteral nutrition via jejunostomy tube needs to be considered. Parenteral nutrition is rarely required when hydration and nutritional state cannot be maintained. Medical treatment entails use of prokinetic and antiemetic therapies. Current approved treatment options, including metoclopramide and gastric electrical stimulation (GES, approved on a humanitarian device exemption), do not adequately address clinical need. Antiemetics have not been specifically tested in gastroparesis, but they may relieve nausea and vomiting. Other medications aimed at symptom relief include unapproved medications or off-label indications, and include domperidone, erythromycin (primarily over a short term), and centrally acting antidepressants used as symptom modulators. GES may relieve symptoms, including weekly vomiting frequency, and the need for nutritional supplementation, based on open-label studies. Second-line approaches include venting gastrostomy or feeding jejunostomy; intrapyloric botulinum toxin injection was not effective in randomized controlled trials. Most of these treatments are based on open-label treatment trials and small numbers. Partial gastrectomy and pyloroplasty should be used rarely, only in carefully selected patients. Attention should be given to the development of new effective therapies for symptomatic control.

Background Placebo treatment can significantly influence subjective symptoms. However, it is widely believed that response to placebo requires concealment or deception. We tested whether open-label placebo (non-deceptive and non-concealed administration) is superior to a no-treatment control with matched patient-provider interactions in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods Two-group, randomized, controlled three week trial (August 2009-April 2010) conducted at a single academic center, involving 80 primarily female (70%) patients, mean age 47±18 with IBS diagnosed by Rome III criteria and with a score ≥150 on the IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS). Patients were randomized to either open-label placebo pills presented as “placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes” or no-treatment controls with the same quality of interaction with providers. The primary outcome was IBS Global Improvement Scale (IBS-GIS). Secondary measures were IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS), IBS Adequate Relief (IBS-AR) and IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QoL). Findings Open-label placebo produced significantly higher mean (±SD) global improvement scores (IBS-GIS) at both 11-day midpoint (5.2±1.0 vs. 4.0±1.1, p<.001) and at 21-day endpoint (5.0±1.5 vs. 3.9±1.3, p = .002). Significant results were also observed at both time points for reduced symptom severity (IBS-SSS, p = .008 and p = .03) and adequate relief (IBS-AR, p = .02 and p = .03); and a trend favoring open-label placebo was observed for quality of life (IBS-QoL) at the 21-day endpoint (p = .08). Conclusion Placebos administered without deception may be an effective treatment for IBS. Further research is warranted in IBS, and perhaps other conditions, to elucidate whether physicians can benefit patients using placebos consistent with informed consent. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01010191

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is an extremely common functional gastrointestinal disorder, the pathophysiology of which is poorly understood. We hypothesised that impaired intestinal barrier function is involved in the onset and persistence of this disorder by inducing low-grade inflammation. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate duodenal mucosal integrity and low-grade inflammation in patients with FD. Duodenal biopsy specimens were obtained from 15 patients with FD fulfilling the Rome III criteria and 15 age- and gender-matched healthy volunteers. Transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) and paracellular permeability were measured in Ussing chambers. Expression of cell-to-cell adhesion proteins was evaluated by real-time PCR, western blot and/or immunofluorescence. Numbers of mast cells, eosinophils and intraepithelial lymphocytes were assessed by immunohistochemistry. Patients with FD displayed lower TEER and increased paracellular passage compared with healthy controls, which is indicative of impaired mucosal integrity. In addition, abnormal expression of cell-to-cell adhesion proteins at the level of tight junctions, adherens junctions and desmosomes was shown. Furthermore, patients were characterised by the presence of low-grade inflammation, as demonstrated by increased infiltration of mucosal mast cells and eosinophils. A significant association between the expression level of several cell-to-cell adhesion proteins, the extent of increased permeability and the severity of low-grade inflammation was found. These findings challenge the classical paradigm that patients with FD show no structural changes in the gastrointestinal tract. We suggest that impaired intestinal barrier function is a pathophysiological mechanism in FD. Thus, restoration of intestinal barrier integrity may be a potential therapeutic target for treating patients with FD.