Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Hungin P

Spiller R, Aziz Q, Creed F, Emmanuel A, Houghton L, Hungin P, Jones R, Kumar D, Rubin G, Trudgill N, Whorwell P, Anonymous00175. · Wolfson Digestive Diseases Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. · Gut. · Pubmed #17488783 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: IBS affects 5-11% of the population of most countries. Prevalence peaks in the third and fourth decades, with a female predominance. AIM: To provide a guide for the assessment and management of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome. METHODS: Members of the Clinical Services Committee of The British Society of Gastroenterology were allocated particular areas to produce review documents. Literature searching included systematic searches using electronic databases such as Pubmed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases and extensive personal reference databases. RESULTS: Patients can usefully be classified by predominant bowel habit. Few investigations are needed except when diarrhoea is a prominent feature. Alarm features may warrant further investigation. Adverse psychological features and somatisation are often present. Ascertaining the patients' concerns and explaining symptoms in simple terms improves outcome. IBS is a heterogeneous condition with a range of treatments, each of which benefits a small proportion of patients. Treatment of associated anxiety and depression often improves bowel and other symptoms. Randomised placebo controlled trials show benefit as follows: cognitive behavioural therapy and psychodynamic interpersonal therapy improve coping; hypnotherapy benefits global symptoms in otherwise refractory patients; antispasmodics and tricyclic antidepressants improve pain; ispaghula improves pain and bowel habit; 5-HT(3) antagonists improve global symptoms, diarrhoea, and pain but may rarely cause unexplained colitis; 5-HT(4) agonists improve global symptoms, constipation, and bloating; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors improve global symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Better ways of identifying which patients will respond to specific treatments are urgently needed.

Jones J, Boorman J, Cann P, Forbes A, Gomborone J, Heaton K, Hungin P, Kumar D, Libby G, Spiller R, Read N, Silk D, Whorwell P. · Division of Gastroenterology, University Hospital, Nottingham, UK. · Gut. · Pubmed #11053260 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Hungin P. · No affiliation provided · Occup Med (Lond). · Pubmed #17200127 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Seifert B, Rubin G, de Wit N, Lionis C, Hall N, Hungin P, Jones R, Palka M, Mendive J. · Department of General Practice, Charles University, Prague, First Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. · Dig Liver Dis. · Pubmed #18406672 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders account for 10% of all consultations in primary care. Little is known about the management of GI disorders by general practitioners (GP) across different European countries. AIM AND METHODS: We undertook a postal survey of randomly selected samples of GPs in six European countries (UK, Holland, Spain, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic) to determine patterns of diagnosis, management and service use in GI disorders. RESULTS: We received 939 responses, response rate 32%. Over 80% of GPs were aware of at least three national guidelines for gastrointestinal disease. The availability of open access endoscopy ranged from 28% (Poland) to over 80% (Holland, Czech and UK). For uninvestigated dyspepsia the preferred first line management was proton pump inhibitor therapy (33-82%), Helicobacter pylori test and treat (19-47%), early endoscopy (5-32%), specialist referral (2-21%). Regarding irritable bowel syndrome, 23% of respondents were familiar with one or more diagnostic criteria, but between 7% (Netherlands) and 32% (Poland) would ask for a specialist opinion before making the diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The wide variation between GPs both between and within countries partly reflects variations in health care systems but also differing levels of knowledge and awareness, factors which are relevant to educational and research policy.

Rubin G, De Wit N, Meineche-Schmidt V, Seifert B, Hall N, Hungin P. · Centre for Primary and Community Care, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK. · Fam Pract. · Pubmed #17062586 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The criteria used to identify and diagnose irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in primary care are unclear, even though most patients are managed entirely in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To use a validated method of consensus development [Nominal Group Technique (Rand version)] (NGT-R) in order to construct a diagnostic framework for IBS appropriate to primary care. METHODS: NGT-R is a formal method of consensus development, which uses structured interaction within a group combined with statistical derivation of group judgements. The group comprised 10 GPs with a special interest in gastroenterology and two gastroenterologists, from 10 European countries. Mailed questionnaires elicited judgements on 242 scenarios for the diagnosis of IBS, within four domains of symptoms, social and lifestyle features, psychological features and investigations. Feedback of group decisions was followed by structured face-to-face interaction and private rescoring of the questionnaire. Consensus was defined as 10/12 ratings within one of three bands, 1-3 (disagreement), 4-6 (equivocal) or 7-9 (agreement). RESULTS: The defining features of IBS in primary care are alteration in bowel habit, bloating and abdominal pain, or discomfort or annoyance (the last reflecting important cultural differences in symptom description). These symptoms need to be present for at least 4 weeks. Supportive characteristics include female sex, family history of IBS, frequent clinic attendances, a recent major life event and a history of somatization behaviours. Abdominal examination was considered necessary in all patients and rectal examination, haemoglobin estimation and colonoscopy in those aged > 55 years. The subtypes of IBS are recognized, but the diagnostic process differs only in minor ways. Final consensus was reached on 46% of statements. CONCLUSION: The basis of IBS diagnosis in primary care differs from, and is less exclusive than, existing criteria. Few features are deemed essential for diagnosis, while psychosocial features, patient characteristics and contextual factors are important in increasing diagnostic probability. There are important cultural differences in the description of key symptoms. These results provide information on the defining characteristics of IBS and the diagnostic process, as it occurs in primary care, and can guide clinical practice.