PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11096567

Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

Abstract

I believe there are four essential elements in the management of patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): to establish a good physician-patient relationship; to educate patients about their condition; to emphasize the excellent prognosis and benign nature of the illness; and to employ therapeutic interventions centering on dietary modifications, pharmacotherapy, and behavioral strategies tailored to the individual. Initially, I establish the diagnosis, exclude organic causes, educate patients about the disease, establish realistic expectations and consistent limits, and involve patients in disease management. I find it critical to determine why the patient is seeking assistance (eg, cancer phobia, disability, interpersonal distress, or exacerbation of symptoms). Most patients can be treated by their primary care physician. However, specialty consultations may be needed to reinforce management strategies, perform additional diagnostic tests, or institute specialized treatment. Psychological co-morbidities do not cause symptoms but do affect how patients respond to them and influence health care-seeking behavior. I find that these issues are best explored over a series of visits when the physician-patient relationship has been established. It can be helpful to have patients fill out a self-administered test to identify psychological co-morbidities. I often use these tests as a basis for extended inquiries into this area, resulting in the initiation of appropriate therapies. I encourage patients to keep a 2-week diary of food intake and gastrointestinal symptoms. In this way, patients become actively involved in management of their disease, and I may be able to obtain information from the diary that will be valuable in making treatment decisions. I do not believe that diagnostic studies for food intolerances are cost-effective or particularly helpful; however, exclusion diets may be beneficial. I introduce fiber supplements gradually and monitor them for tolerance and palatability. Synthetic fiber is often better-tolerated than natural fiber, but must be individualized. In my experience, excessive fiber supplementation often is counterproductive, as abdominal cramps and bloating may worsen. Antidiarrheal agents are very effective when used correctly, preferably in divided doses. I use them in patients in anticipation of diarrhea and especially in those who fear symptoms when engaged in activities outside the home. I encourage patients to make decisions as to when and how much to use. However, almost always, a morning dose before breakfast is used (loperamide, 2 to 6 mg) and, perhaps again later in the day when symptoms of diarrhea are prominent. I prefer antispasmodics to be used intermittently in response to periods of increased abdominal pain, cramps, and urgency. For patients with daily symptoms, especially after meals, agents such as dicyclomine before meals are useful. For patients with infrequent but severe episodes of unpredictable pain, sublingual hyoscyamine often produces rapid relief and instills confidence. In general, I recommend that oral antispasmodics be used for a limited period of time rather than indefinitely, and generally for periods of time when symptoms are prominent. For chronic visceral pain syndromes, I recommend small doses of tricyclic antidepressants. These agents are especially effective in diarrhea-predominant patients with disturbed sleep patterns but may be unacceptable to patients with constipation. I educate patients that side effects occur early and benefits may not be apparent for 3 to 4 weeks. I consider using SSRIs in low doses in patients with constipation-predominant IBS; cisapride, 10 to 20 mg three times per day, also may be beneficial. When taken with drugs that inhibit cytochrome P450, cisapride has been associated with serious cardiac arrhythmias caused by QT prolongation, including ventricular arrhythmias and torsades de pointes. These drugs include the azole fungicides; erythromycin, clarithromycin, and troleandomycin; some antidepressants; HIV protease inhibitors; and others. In patients with IBS with mild to moderate co-morbid depression, I have found that the use of SSRIs such as paroxetine, fluoxetine, or sertraline may be beneficial. It is important to tell patients that anxiety and disturbed sleep may occur during the first 10 days and benefits may not occur for 3 to 4 weeks. I prescribe a small amount of a short-acting benzodiazepine such as alprazolam, 0.5 mg two times per day, to control these symptoms. For generalized anxiety without depression, buspirone or clonazepam may be useful. I have found that patients who also have associated panic disorder may benefit from a benzodiazepine, tricyclic antidepressant, or an SSRI. However, these patients are best managed in conjunction with a psychiatrist or psychologist. I consider the use of alternative therapies in patients who fail to respond to conventional measures and who are receptive to alternative strategies. These include general relaxation techniques such as biofeedback and hypnosis therapies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Wald. 1999. Irritable Bowel Syndrome.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-999-0013-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗