No abstract

Aim To identify patient factors, including gastrointestinal functions, that are predictive or associated with weight loss in response to once‐daily 3 mg liraglutide administered subcutaneously (SQ) or placebo in obesity. Methods One hundred and thirty‐six obese adults (87% female) were randomized in a placebo‐controlled, 16‐week trial of liraglutide, escalated to 3 mg administered SQ daily. Gastrointestinal functions were measured at baseline and 16 weeks: gastric emptying of solids (GET1/2); fasting and postprandial gastric volumes; kcal ingested during ad libitum buffet meal and the nutrient drink test. GET1/2 was also measured at 5 weeks. A multiple variable regression model examined variables associated with weight loss of more than 4 kg at 16 weeks. A parsimonious model using backward selection identified the final model. Results Weight loss of more than 4 kg at 16 weeks occurred in 71% of liraglutide‐ and 16% of placebo‐treated patients. In all participants combined, parameters univariately associated with a weight loss of more than 4 kg were GET1/2 at 5 and 16 weeks, weight loss at 5 weeks and kcal intake during the buffet meal at 16 weeks. The final parsimonious model (area under the receiver operator characteristics [AUROC] curve = 0.832) identified that factors associated with more than 4‐kg weight loss were GET1/2 at 5 weeks (OR = 2.505; 95% CI: 1.57‐3.997) per 50 minutes and kcal intake during ad libitum meal at 16 weeks (OR = 0.721; 95% CI: 0.602‐0.864) per 100 kcal. Among only the 60 liraglutide‐treated subjects, kcal intake at 16 weeks was associated with 4‐kg weight loss (AUROC = 0.757). Conclusions Slower GET1/2 and weight loss at 5 weeks predicted a weight loss of more than 4 kg at 16 weeks in all participants. Among liraglutide‐treated adults, weight loss of more than 4 kg was associated with ad libitum meal kcal intake at 16 weeks.

ObjectiveThere are altered mucosal functions in irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS-D); ~30% of patients with IBS-D have abnormal bile acid (BA) metabolism (ABAM) and diarrhoea (summarised as BAD).AimTo compare biochemical parameters, gastrointestinal and colonic transit, rectal sensation and pathobiological mechanisms in IBS-D without ABAM and in BAD (serum 7C4>52 ng/mL).DesignIn patients with Rome III criteria of IBS-D, we compared biochemical features, colonic transit, rectal sensation, deep genotype of five BA-related genes, ileal and colonic mucosal mRNA (differential expression (DE) analysis) and stool dysbiosis (including functional analysis of microbiome). Results in BAD were compared with IBS-D without ABAM.ResultsCompared with 161 patients with IBS-D without ABAM, 44 patients with BAD had significantly faster colonic transit, lower microbial alpha diversity, different compositional profile (beta diversity) and higher Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio with evidence of decreased expression of bile acid thiol ligase (involved in transformation of primary to secondary BAs) and decreased sulfatases. In BAD (compared with IBS-D without ABAM), terminal ileal biopsies showed downregulation of SLC44A5 (a BA transporter), and ascending colon biopsies showed upregulation in barrier-weakening genes (CLDN2), serine protease inhibitors, immune activation, cellular differentiation and a cellular transporter (FABP6; BA binding). No DE of genes was documented in descending colon biopsies. The two groups had similar rectal sensation.ConclusionThough sharing clinical symptoms with IBS-D, BAD is associated with biological differences and mechanisms that have potential to enhance diagnosis and treatment targeting barrier dysfunction, inflammatory and microbial changes.

Pain relief remains a significant challenge in the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): "Does anything really help relieve the pain in patients with IBS?".Interventions aimed at pain relief in patients with IBS include diet, probiotics or antibiotics, antidepressants, antispasmodics, and drugs targeting specific gastrointestinal receptors such as opioid or histamine receptors. In the systematic review and metaanalysis published in this journal, Lambarth et al. examined the literature on the role of oral and parenteral anti-neuropathic agents in the management of pain in patients with IBS. This review article appraises their assessment of the efficacy of the antineuropathic agents amitriptyline, pregabalin, gabapentin, and duloxetine in the relief of abdominal pain or discomfort, and impact on overall IBS severity and quality of life. This commentary provides an update of current evidence on the efficacy of the dietary and pharmacological treatments that are available or in development, as well psychological and cognitive behavioral therapy for pain in IBS. Advances in recent years augur well for efficacious treatments that may expand the therapeutic arsenal for pain in IBS.