Defects in intestinal barrier function are associated with diseases of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. There is growing evidence that increases in intestinal permeability plays a pathogenic role in diseases, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and celiac disease, and functional bowel disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This review takes a unique translational approach to discuss the physiological and pathophysiological mechanisms involved in the regulation of intestinal barrier function in IBS. The review summarizes the components of the intestinal barrier including the tight junction complex within the epithelium, and the methods used to assess gut permeability both in vitro and in vivo. Throughout the review, the authors have attempted to critically review the latest research from both experimental animal models and human studies to appraise whether intestinal barrier dysfunction is a primary cause of functional GI disorders, such as IBS....

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disorder in which the underlying pathophysiology is poorly understood; however, increased intestinal permeability in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients has been reported. Here we demonstrate diarrhea-predominant IBS patients (D-IBS) that display increased intestinal permeability. We have also found that increased intestinal membrane permeability is associated with visceral and thermal hypersensitivity in this subset of D-IBS patients. We evaluated 54 D-IBS patients and 22 controls for intestinal membrane permeability using the lactulose / mannitol method. All subjects ingested 5 g laclulose and 2 g mannitol in 100 ml of water after which their urine was collected. We also evaluated the mean mechanical visual analogue (MVAS) pain rating to nociceptive thermal and visceral stimulation in all subjects. All study participants also completed the FBDSI scale. Approximately 39% of diarrhea-predominant IBS patients have increased intestinal membrane permeability as measured by the lactulose / mannitol ratio. These IBS patients also demonstrated higher M-VAS pain intensity reading scale. Interestingly, the IBS patients with hypersensitivity and increased intestinal permeability had a higher FBDSI score (100.8±5.4) compared to IBS patients with normal membrane permeability and sensitivity (51.6±12.7) and controls (6.1 ± 5.6) (p<0.001). A subset of D-IBS patients have increased intestinal membrane permeability that is associated with an increased FBDSI score and increased hypersensitivity to visceral and thermal nociceptive pain stimuli. Thus, increased intestinal membrane permeability in D-IBS patients may lead to more severe IBS symptoms and hypersensitivity to somatic and visceral stimuli.

In order to investigate external factors that may influence the magnitude of placebo analgesia as well as psychological factors that mediate placebo analgesia, 13 irritable bowl syndrome (IBS) patients rated evoked rectal distension and cutaneous heat pain under the conditions of natural history (NH), rectal placebo (RP), rectal nocebo (RN), rectal lidocaine (RL) and oral lidocaine (OL). Patients were given verbal suggestions for pain relief and rated expected pain levels and desire for pain relief for both evoked visceral and cutaneous pain, respectively. Large reductions in pain intensity and pain unpleasantness ratings were found in the RP, RL and OL condition as compared to the natural history condition, whereas no significant difference in pain reduction between the three treatment conditions was found. Ratings during RN and NH were not statistically different. Compared to a previous study, which shows that rectal lidocaine reverses visceral and cutaneous hyperalgesia, these results suggest that adding a verbal suggestion for pain relief can increase the magnitude of placebo analgesia to that of an active agent. Since IBS patients rate these stimuli as much higher than do normal control subjects and since placebo effects were very large, they probably reflect anti-hyperalgesic mechanisms to a major extent. Expected pain levels and desire for pain relief accounted for large amounts of the variance in visceral pain intensity in the RP, RL, and OL condition (up to 81%), and for lower amounts of the variance in cutaneous pain intensity. Hence, the combination of expected pain levels and desire for pain relief may offer an alternative means of assessing the contribution of placebo factors during analgesia.