OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the histamine 1 receptor antagonist ebastine as a potential treatment for patients with non-constipated irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study.
METHODS: Non-constipated patients with IBS fulfilling the Rome III criteria were randomly assigned to 20 mg ebastine or placebo for 12 weeks. Subjects scored global relief of symptoms (GRS) and abdominal pain intensity (API). A subject was considered a weekly responder for GRS if total or obvious relief was reported and a responder for API if the weekly average pain score was reduced by at least 30% vs baseline. The primary endpoints were the proportion of subjects who were weekly responders for at least 6 out of the 12 treatment weeks for both GRS and API (\'GRS+API\', composite endpoint) and for GRS and API separately.
RESULTS: 202 participants (32±11 years, 68% female) were randomly allocated to receive ebastine (n=101) or placebo (n=101). Treatment with ebastine resulted in significantly more responders (12%, 12/92) for GRS+API compared with placebo (4%, 4/87, p=0.047) while the proportion of responders for GRS and API separately was higher for ebastine compared with placebo, although not statistically significant (placebo vs ebastine, GRS: 7% (6/87) vs 15% (14/91), p=0.072; API: 25% (20/85) vs 37% (34/92), p=0.081).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that ebastine is superior to placebo and should be further evaluated as novel treatment for patients with non-constipated IBS.
BACKGROUND: The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee of each study site (EudraCT number: 2013-001199-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01908465).

BACKGROUND: Visceral hypersensitivity in functional dyspepsia can be localized or widespread, and there is no simple method of assessment. Measuring interoceptive accuracy at different sites provides an assessment of perceptual hypersensitivity to specific ecological phenomena. The purpose of this study was to characterize visceral hypersensitivity by comparing gastric sensory and cardiac perceptual tests in patients with postprandial distress syndrome and in healthy volunteers.
METHODS: Sixteen patients with postprandial distress syndrome (age = 47.5 ± 17.4, all female) and 16 healthy volunteers (age = 43.3 ± 16.1, all female) participated in the study after a six-hour fast. Each participant answered questionnaires about physical and mental quality of life, depression and anxiety, tendency of alexithymia, and somatosensory amplification. After completing the questionnaire, the participants took the heartbeat tracking task and the five-minute water load test. We performed statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman\'s rank correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: Subjects with postprandial distress syndrome had a lower drinking capacity than healthy volunteers (postprandial distress syndrome = 360.9 ± 170.0 mL, healthy volunteers = 644.1 ± 297 mL, P = 0.009), but there was no significant difference in the heartbeat perception score (postprandial distress syndrome = 0.599 ± 0.175, healthy volunteers = 0.623 ± 0.181, P = 0.647). There was a negative correlation (r = - 0.509, P < 0.05) between drinking capacity and the heartbeat perception score in healthy volunteers, but no correlation in postprandial distress syndrome (r = - 0.156, P = 0.564). Heartbeat perception score did not correlate with psychological measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with healthy volunteers, only the five-minute water load test values were reduced in patients with postprandial distress syndrome, and no difference was observed in the heartbeat tracking task. Combining the 5-minute water load test and the heart rate tracking task revealed a lost cardiac-gastric perceptual relationship in patients with postprandial distress syndrome that was not observed in healthy volunteers, suggesting that there is hypersensitivity in gastric interoceptive perceptual function. Performing sensory examinations at two different sites may be useful in clarifying whether visceral hypersensitivity is localized.
BACKGROUND: UMIN000057586. Registered11 March 2023(retrospectively registered).

UNASSIGNED: Patient perception of colonoscopy varies greatly. Young slender women and patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) appear to be at risk for periprocedural pain. Recent evidence suggests a high prevalence of joint hypermobility related connective tissue disorders in this population. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether hypermobility spectrum disorder (HSD) is associated with increased pain during colonoscopy.
UNASSIGNED: We prospectively included patients undergoing routine colonoscopy. Subjects were assessed for HSD using the 2017 criteria, and IBS and functional dyspepsia using the Rome III criteria. After colonoscopy and recovery from sedation, patients were asked to report pain scores on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). In addition, caecal intubation time was measured, endoscopists scored the difficulty of the procedure (100-mm VAS) and procedure-related adverse events were registered.
UNASSIGNED: Of 200 included patients, 22 (11%) met criteria for HSD. A female predominance was observed in patients with HSD (86.4% versus 49.4%, p < 0.001). A crude linear regression model demonstrated that pain scores were 13.30 mm higher in patients with HSD versus non-HSD patients (95% CI 0.07 - 26.53, p = 0.049). When subsequently correcting for possible confounding factors, however, this difference in pain scores could be explained by a confounding effect of female gender. Caecal intubation time, perceived procedural difficulty and complication rate did not differ significantly between groups.
UNASSIGNED: HSD does not seem to be a predictor of painful colonoscopy, probably due to female gender as a confounding factor. In addition, performing colonoscopy is not more complicated in patients with HSD versus non-HSD patients, nor is it associated with more adverse events.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), is a common multifactorial gastrointestinal disorder linked to disturbances in the microbe gut-brain axis. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), in face-to-face format has showed promising results on IBS and its associated psychological symptoms. The present study explored for the first time if CBT for IBS affects the autonomic nervous system (ANS) during experimentally induced visceral pain and cognitive stress, respectively. The levels of state and trait anxiety, current and perceived stress were also evaluated.
In this uncontrolled trial, individual CBT was performed in face-to-face format for 12 weeks in 18 subjects with IBS. Heart rate variability and skin conductance were measured during experimentally induced visceral pain and during a cognitive task (Stroop color-word test), before and after intervention. The levels of state and trait anxiety as well as self-rated current and perceived stress were also measured before and after the intervention.
CBT did not affect ANS activity during experimentally induced visceral pain and cognitive stress. The sympathetic activity was high, typical for IBS and triggered during both visceral pain and cognitive stress. The levels of state and trait anxiety significantly decreased after the intervention. No significant changes in self-rated current or perceived stress were found.
Results suggest that face-to-face CBT for IBS improved anxiety- a key psychological mechanism for the IBS pathophysiology, rather than the autonomic stress response to experimentally induced visceral pain and cognitive stress, respectively.
This study indicates that IBS patients present high levels of stress and difficulties coping with anxiety and ANS activity during visceral pain and a cognitive stress test, respectively. These manifestations of IBS are however not targeted by CBT, and do not seem to be central for the study participants IBS symptoms according to the current and our previous study. Face-to-face CBT for IBS, it does not seem to affect modulation of ANS activity in response to induced visceral pain or cognitive stress. Instead, face-to-face CBT decreased levels of state and trait anxiety. Implications for further studies include that anxiety seems to be important in the IBS pathophysiology, and needs further scientific attention. This is in line with the fear-avoidance model which suggests that anxious responses to pain and discomfort drive hypervigilance to, and (behavioral) avoidance of, symptom provoking stimuli and vice versa. Catastrophic cognitions, hypervigilance and avoidant behavioral responses are proposed to produce vicious circles that withhold and exacerbate pain-related symptoms and disability, and lead to lower quality of life. Larger scale studies of potential autonomic changes are needed in order to elucidate which mechanisms elicit its effects in face-to-face CBT for IBS, and provide new avenues in understanding the pathophysiology of IBS.

Some consider that patients with visceral hypersensitivity may represent a separate entity within the IBS population not only from a pathophysiological but also from a clinical perspective. The aim of this prospective exploratory study was to assess whether characteristics of abdominal pain in IBS patients could be suggestive of hypersensitivity.
This prospective study included consecutive IBS patients selected by Rome III criteria. Validated scores (IBS-SSS, Bristol stool scale, HADS) were used to phenotype patients who were also asked to describe the main location of their abdominal pain on a simple image (abdomen divided into 6 zones). Progressive isobaric rectal distensions were performed to demonstrate, with the ascending method of limits, allodynia (pain threshold lower than 24 mmHg).
Fifty patients (women: 72%), 42.6 ± 15.7 years old, were included. Sub-types were IBS-D, IBS-C and IBS-M in 58%, 22% and 20% of cases, respectively. Allodynia was present in 18% of cases. Neither IBS-SSS nor intensity of pain was predictive of hypersensitivity. In hypersensitive patients, pain was more often located in one of the two iliac fossa (P = 0.02) and located outside these areas in only 11% of cases. The sensitivity and the specificity of this pain location to differentiate hyper from normosensitive patients were 0.89 and 0.59, respectively.
The location of pain is different between hyper and normosensitive IBS patients. Pain located outside one of the two iliac fossa suggests that the patient is normosensitive.

BACKGROUND: Altered serotonergic (5-HT) metabolism and visceral perception have been associated with the pathogenesis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Aim of this preliminary study was to assess the effect of the direct precursor of 5-HT, 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP), on systemic 5-HT metabolites and visceral perception and to assess potential differential responses between IBS and controls.
METHODS: 15 IBS patients and 15 healthy volunteers participated in this randomized double-blind placebo controlled study. Visceroperception was measured by rectal barostat. The 100 mg 5-HTP or placebo was ingested orally. Serotonergic metabolites were assessed in platelet poor plasma.
RESULTS: 5-HTP induces rectal allodynia in a significant number of healthy controls; IBS patients exhibit lowered pain thresholds in both placebo and 5-HTP conditions. 5-HTP induces rectal hyperalgesia in hypersensitive but not in non-hypersensitive IBS patients. Administration of 5-HTP significantly increased plasma 5-HTP levels (p < 0.001), did not affect 5-HT levels (p > 0.05), while levels of the main metabolite of 5-HT, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, increased significantly (p < 0.05) in both groups. The magnitude of these changes observed in 5-HT metabolites was significantly greater in IBS patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of 5-HTP induced significant alterations in systemic 5-HT metabolites that were accompanied by increased visceroperception of pain in controls and hypersensitive IBS patients. Changes in 5-HT metabolism appear to be important factors involved in visceral hypersensitivity as the 5-HTP-induced pro-nociceptive response was observed in all hypersensitive IBS patients and to a lesser magnitude in a significant number of healthy controls but in none of the non-hypersensitive IBS patients.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is characterized by heterogeneous pathophysiology and low response to treatment. Up to 60% of IBS patients suffers from visceral hypersensitivity, which is associated with symptom severity and underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Recently, positive effects of probiotics in IBS have been reported, but overall the response was modest. We performed a study in IBS patients, characterized by visceral hypersensitivity measured with the rectal barostat, aiming to assess the effect of 6 weeks of multispecies probiotic mix on visceral pain perception.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in forty Rome III IBS patients with visceral hypersensitivity. Prior to intake, patients kept a 2-week symptom diary and underwent a rectal barostat measurement. When hypersensitivity was confirmed, participation was allowed and patients received a multispecies probiotic with in vitro proven potential beneficial effects on mechanisms contributing to visceral hypersensitivity (six different probiotic strains; 10(9)  cfu/g), or a placebo product of one sachet (5 g) per day for 6 weeks. At the end of the intervention period, visceroperception and symptoms were reassessed.
RESULTS: Thirty-five patients completed the trial. The percentage of patients with visceral hypersensitivity decreased significantly in the probiotic and placebo group (76.5% and 71.4%, respectively; N.S. between groups). Improvement in pain scores and mean symptom score did not differ between the probiotic and placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS: In this placebo-controlled trial in IBS patients with visceral hypersensitivity, no significant effect of a multispecies probiotic on viscerperception was observed. The study has been registered in the US National Library of Medicine (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00702026).

OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of low-dose amitriptyline (AMT) on gastrointestinal function and brain-gut peptides in healthy Chinese volunteers.
METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, two-period cross-over trial. Twenty-eight healthy volunteers were randomised and administered 1-wk treatments of AMT (12.5 mg tid) or placebo. Before and during the final two days of treatment, gastric emptying, proximal gastric accommodation and visceral sensitivity were measured by drinking-ultrasonography test; the orocecal transit time (OCTT) was measured by lactulose hydrogen breath test, and fasting blood was collected. Plasma levels of ghrelin, motilin and neuropeptide Y (NPY) were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits.
RESULTS: AMT slowed the OCTT (109.2 ± 29.68 min vs 96.61 ± 23.9 min, P = 0.004) but did not affect liquid gastric emptying and had no effect on proximal gastric accommodation. AMT resulted in decreases in the visual analogue scale (VAS) for difficulty in drinking 600 and 800 mL of water (3.57 ± 0.94 vs 2.98 ± 0.85, 5.57 ± 0.82 vs 4.57 ± 0.98, P < 0.01 for both), although it had no significant effect on the VAS for difficulty in drinking 200 mL and 400 mL of water. AMT significantly increased the plasma ghrelin level (442.87 ± 176.79 pg/mL vs 526.87 ± 158.44 pg/mL, P = 0.04) and the neuropeptide-Y level (890.15 ± 131.46 pg/mL vs 965.64 ± 165.63 pg/mL, P = 0.03), whereas it had no effect on the MTL level.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose AMT could slow OCTT, make the stomach less sensitive and increase the plasma levels of ghrelin and NPY. Thus, we recommend the use of low-dose AMT for functional gastrointestinal disorders.