scholarly journals Global Dietary Patterns and Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders

Children ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 152
Author(s):  
Cara Hannah Axelrod ◽  
Miguel Saps

Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (FGIDs) are common. In the United States alone, approximately 25 million Americans are estimated to have at least one FGID. Nonpharmacological treatment options include psychological/behavioral approaches, and dietary interventions that can vary across countries. The aim of this review is to evaluate the available evidence for dietary interventions for the treatment of childhood FGIDs amongst various cultures and regions of the world. This review includes clinical trials of dietary therapies for the treatment of FGIDs in children posted on or before 13 July 2020 in PubMed. Overall, the consensus view suggests that the westernization of diets is linked to the development of FGIDs, and diets low in Fermentable Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides and Polyols (FODMAPs) may reduce abdominal symptoms. However, more work is needed to confirm these findings.

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 899-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Bruce Lydiard

ABSTRACTBackground:Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) are a group of disorders characterized by recurrent gastrointestinal distress for which no structural or biochemical cause can be discerned. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is an FGID estimated to affect 10% to 25% of the United States population. IBS occurs in over 40% of individuals with panic disorder, and in patients with IBS, 25% to 30% have panic disorder, which has led to speculation about possible shared pathophysiology between the two. Less is known about the prevalence of other FGID in individuals with panic disorder.Objective:The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of IBS and all the other FGID in patients with current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) panic disorder.Introduction:We assessed FGIDs in 73 treatment-seeking DSM-IV panic disorder patients via the Diagnostic Interview Questions for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders and made descriptive comparisons with a large convenience sample from an already-completed United States Household Survey (USHS), which employed the same diagnostic criteria.Results:The prevalence of IBS and other FGIDs in both men and women with panic disorder were substantially higher than in the USHS respondents. Women with panic disorder had significantly more functional chest pain than men, but there was no gender difference in IBS. With the exception of functional anorectal and biliary disorders, the FGID prevalences were comparatively higher in panic disorder versus the USHS respondents.Discussion:This survey supports earlier reports of a high prevalence of IBS in individuals with panic disorder and also suggests that the prevalence of several other FGIDs were comparatively high as well. Methodological limitations precluded direct statistical analysis. It may be that commonly overlapping psychiatric and often-painful FGIDs, and extra-intestinal disorders increase the risk for comorbidity in already-affected individuals via shared pathophysiology. One potential model for which there is some evidence for a role in stress, panic disorder, FGIDs and several extra-intestinal functional conditions is dysregulation of corticotropin-releasing factor function.Conclusion:The prevalence of FGIDs in DSM-IV panic disorder was comparatively higher than in USHS respondent community sample, which used similar FGID diagnostic criteria. The cause for the apparent close association of panic disorder with FGID may represent shared pathophysiology. Increased understanding of the mechanism of the overlap may allow for improved treatment of the significant proportion of the population suffering from comorbid psychiatric and functional medical conditions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Guandalini ◽  
E. Cernat ◽  
D. Moscoso

Underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a common disorder characterized by abdominal pain associated to a change in stool consistency or frequency, include low-grade inflammation and intestinal microbiota changes. Few and disappointing data are available for prebiotics. A few controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics are instead available with favourable effects, although most are limited by suboptimal design and small sample size. A recent report from the Rome foundation group included 32 RCTs of probiotics, most of which showed an overall modest improvement in symptoms, with the patients most benefitting from probiotics being those with predominant diarrhoea and those having a post-infectious IBS. A review focusing only on children with functional gastrointestinal disorders concluded that probiotics are more effective than placebo in the treatment of patients with abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorders, although no effect on constipation was evident. The role for probiotics in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appears logical: the endogenous intestinal microbiota plays a central role in their development, and various probiotics have been found effective in animal models of IBD. However, research in humans has been overall quite limited, and it would seem that after a phase of intense research in the first decade of this century, the pace has slowed down, with fewer clinical trials been published in the past 2-3 years. To summarize current evidence: no probiotic has proven successful in Crohn's disease. In ulcerative colitis, on the other hand, data are more promising, and a very recent meta-analysis, that included 23 randomized controlled trials, concluded that there is evidence of efficacy for the probiotic mixture VSL#3 in helping inducing and maintaining remission, as well as in maintaining remission in patients with pouchitis. It is fair to state that for both IBD and IBS, more well-designed, rigorous, randomized clinical trials must be performed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-54
Author(s):  
Y. S. Tsimmerman

The author shares his thoughts about exaggerating the role of infection with Helicobacter pylori in etiology and pathogenesis of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, gastric cancer. Arguments against the common concept of functional gastrointestinal disorders, formulation of syndromic rather than nosological diagnosis are represented. Particular attention is paid to the moral and ethical aspects of the use of placebo in clinical trials. The shortcomings and errors of the terms that are used in modern gastroenterology are analyzed in detail.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Kröker ◽  
Madara Tirzīte

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world extraordinarily. This disease has a potential to cause a significantly severe course of disease leading to respiratory complications, multiple organ failure and possibly death. In the fight against this pandemic-causing disease, medical professionals around the world are searching for pharmacological agents that could treat and prevent disease progression and mortality. To speed the search of promising treatment options, already existing pharmacological agents are repurposed for the potential treatment of COVID-19 and tested in clinical trials. The aim of this literature review is to investigate the efficacy and safety of repurposed pharmacological agents for the treatment of COVID-19 at different pathophysiologic stages of the disease. For this literature review, online-databases PubMed and Google Scholar were utilised. Keywords “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “pathogenesis”, “drug targets”, “pharmacological treatment”, “cytokine storm”, “coagulopathy” and individual drug names were used. Scientific articles, including reviews, clinical trials, and observational cohorts, were collected and analysed. Furthermore, these articles were examined for references to find more clinical trials testing for the potential treatment of COVID-19. In total, 97 references were used to conduct this research paper. Results The most beneficial pharmacological agent for the treatment of COVID-19 are corticosteroids, especially dexamethasone, for the treatment of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. Other promising agents are remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring minimal supplemental oxygen therapy, and IL-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies in severe COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir, as well as chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin demonstrate the least efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. The clinical benefits of the treatment of a COVID-19-specific coagulopathy with increased dosing of anticoagulation need further research and confirmation of randomised controlled trials. Conclusion The search for pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 has elicited great controversy. Whereas drugs like chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir have not shown proven benefit, the agents remdesivir and dexamethasone are recommended for clinical use for the treatment of COVID-19. Further randomised trials for other pharmacological treatment strategies are awaited.


Author(s):  
Binh T. Ngo ◽  
Marc S. Rendell

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe spread of COVID-19 from Wuhan in China throughout the world has been alarmingly rapid. Epidemiologic techniques succeeded in containing the disease in China, but efforts were not as successful in the rest of the world, particularly the United States where there have been 2,079,592 confirmed cases with 115,484 deaths as of June 15, 2020. Projections are for continued new infections and deaths if no effective treatments can be activated over the next six months. We performed a systematic review to determine the potential time course for development of treatments and vaccines focusing on availability in the last half of 2020.MethodsPublicationsOur search was performed during the week of June 15, 2020 We reviewed up to date information from several sources to identify potential treatments for COVID-19: We used the Reagan-Udall Expanded Access Navigator COVID-19 Treatment Hub to track the efforts of companies to develop treatments. We then used the results to search for publications identified treatments on pubmed.gov and on medRxiv, the preprint server. We further used a targeted Google search to find announcements of trial results.Clinical TrialsWe searched for all investigational trials begun in the first quarter of 2020, with cut off on April 1, using several different sources: (A) covid-trials.org, then validated results on (B) clinicaltrials.gov and the (C) World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We focused on trials which were completed or currently recruiting for patients, reasoning that the timeline to arrive at treatments by the end of the year would require completion within the next 6 months. We excluded studies which were clearly observational, with no randomization, control or comparison group. We further set a cutoff of 100 for numbers of subjects since smaller trial size could lack statistical power to establish superiority of the intervention over the control condition.ResultsPublished DataWe found 43 publications reporting findings on 1 classes of agents. There were 12 publications related to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ),11 on tocilizumab, 4 publications related to remdesivir, four on lopanovir/ritonavir (LPV/R), four on interferons, two on favipiravir, two on convalescent plasma, one on meplazumab, one on corticosteroids, one on famotidine, and one on ivermectin. Of these, only 16 were randomized or active control studies; the rest were retrospective observational. Only two publications dealt with outpatient care, the rest all in hospitalized patients.Clinical TrialsWe found 409 trials meeting our minimum requirement of 100 subjects which were recruiting or completed. The WHO has launched the Solidarity megatrial performed in over 100 countries actively comparing HCQ, lopanovir/ritonavir (LPV/R) alone and in combination with interferon beta-1, and remdesivir. That trial is scheduled to complete enrollment in the first quarter of 2021. In addition, we found 46 trials of HCQ, 11 trials of LPV/R and 8 trials of interferons. There were 18 ongoing trials of antiviral agents, 24 immune modulator trials, 9 vaccine trials, and 62 trials of other agents. We excluded a large number of trials of Chinese traditional medications, reasoning that there was insufficient clinical experience with these agents outside China to offer these treatments to the rest of the world. Forty four trials were hoping to complete enrollment by the end of the second quarter of 2020. Of these, only 9 were conducted on outpatients. A few vaccine trials are hoping to complete Phase 3 enrollment by the end of the third quarter, but a prolonged follow-up of patients will likely be required.ConclusionRemdesivir and tocilizumab have now been granted emergency authorization in many countries for treatment of hospitalized patients. However, the disease is propagated primarily by infected ambulatory individuals. There are only a few randomized controlled studies in outpatients which can be expected to yield results in time to impact on the continuing spread of the epidemic in 2020. It will be necessary for public health authorities to make hard decisions with limited data. The choices will be hardest in dealing with potential early release of vaccines.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 1245
Author(s):  
Saira Z. Sheikh ◽  
Nicole I. Wanty ◽  
Joncel Stephens ◽  
Kristen D. Holtz ◽  
Sheryl McCalla

In the United States, the reported prevalence of lupus is 100,000 to 500,000 patients. Lupus disproportionately affects minority populations, including African Americans and Latinos, and the associated health disparities are substantial. Women are at a higher risk of lupus than men and lupus prevalence is the highest in African Americans and Latinos compared to non-Hispanic whites. African Americans and Latinos also have increased disease symptom severity, experience more lupus-related complications, and have a two- to three-fold mortality rate compared to non-Hispanic Whites. Lupus clinical trials offer opportunities for quality care and can result in new treatment options, but African Americans and Latinos are underrepresented in clinical trials because of substantial patient- and provider-side barriers. In conjunction with the limited knowledge of clinical trials that potential participants may have, the healthcare staff approaching participants have limited time to adequately educate and explain the aspects of clinical trials. Indeed, ninety percent of clinical trials fail to meet their recruitment goals on time, so a multi-faceted approach is necessary to address the issue of low minority participation in clinical trials.


Gut ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 45 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. ii78-ii79 ◽  
Author(s):  
W E Whitehead ◽  
E Corazziari ◽  
R Prizont ◽  
J R Senior ◽  
W G Thompson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document