The new 2017 diagnostic criteria for hypermobile Ehlers–Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) provide a framework for diagnosing hEDS but are more stringent than the previous Villefranche criteria. Our clinical experience at the GoodHope EDS clinic was that the 2017 criteria left many highly symptomatic patients without a diagnosis of hEDS. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to confirm our clinic experience and assess the accuracy of the 2017 diagnostic criteria for hEDS in patients who had a previous hEDS diagnosis based on the Villefranche criteria. Our study found that 15% (n = 20 of 131) of patients with a prior diagnosis of hEDS met the 2017 diagnostic criteria, and many of the traits used to distinguish hEDS were not significantly more frequent in patients who met 2017 criteria versus those who did not. In both groups objective systemic manifestations were found less frequently than subjective systemic manifestations. Beighton score (BS) as assessed by primary care practitioner was found to be higher than assessment by EDS practitioner in 81% (n = 74 of 91) of cases. Generalized joint hypermobility was confirmed in only 46% (n = 51 of 111) of patients who had a previous diagnosis of hEDS. Higher BS did not correlate with increased number of systemic manifestations in our cohort. Common comorbidities of hEDS were found with similar frequency in those who met 2017 criteria and those who did not. Based on our cohort, the 2017 hEDS diagnostic criteria require refinement to improve its diagnostic accuracy.

Background. Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C) are common functional lower gastrointestinal disorders that impair patients' quality of life. In a national survey, we aimed to evaluate (1) Canadian physician practice patterns in the utilization of therapeutic agents listed in the new ACG and AGA guidelines; (2) physicians satisfaction with these agents for their CIC and IBS-C patients; and (3) the usefulness of these new guidelines in their clinical practice. Methods. A 9-item questionnaire was sent to 350 Canadian specialists to evaluate their clinical practice for the management of CIC and IBS-C. Results. The response rate to the survey was 16% (n = 55). Almost all (96%) respondents followed a standard, stepwise approach for management while they believed that only 24% of referring physicians followed the same approach. Respondents found guanylyl cyclase C (GCC) agonist most satisfying when treating their patients. Among the 69% of respondents who were aware of published guidelines, only 50% found them helpful in prioritizing treatment choices and 69% of respondents indicated that a treatment algorithm, applicable to Canadian practice, would be valuable. Conclusion. Based on this needs assessment, a treatment algorithm was developed to provide clinical guidance in the management of IBS-C and CIC in Canada.