No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

AimsThe aim of the study was to assess the provision of dietetic services for coeliac disease (CD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).MethodsHospitals within all National Health Service trusts in England were approached (n=209). A custom-designed web-based questionnaire was circulated via contact methods of email, post or telephone. Individuals/teams with knowledge of gastrointestinal (GI) dietetic services within their trust were invited to complete.Results76% of trusts (n=158) provided GI dietetic services, with responses received from 78% of these trusts (n=123). The median number of dietitians per 100 000 population was 3.64 (range 0.15–16.60), which differed significantly between regions (p=0.03). The most common individual consultation time for patients with CD, IBS and IBD was 15–30 min (43%, 44% and 54%, respectively). GI dietetic services were delivered both via individual and group counselling, with individual counselling being the more frequent delivery method available (93% individual vs 34% group). A significant proportion of trusts did not deliver any specialist dietetic clinics for CD, IBS and IBD (49% (n=60), 50% (n=61) and 72% (n=88), respectively).ConclusionThere is an inequity of GI dietetic services across England, with regional differences in the level of provision and extent of specialist care. Allocated time for clinics appears to be insufficient compared with time advocated in the literature. Group clinics are becoming a more common method of dietetic service delivery for CD and IBS. National guidance on GI dietetic service delivery is required to ensure equity of dietetic services across England.

No abstract

There has been a renewed interest in the role of dietary therapies to manage irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), with diet high on the agenda for patients. Currently, interest has focussed on the use of traditional dietary advice (TDA), a gluten-free diet (GFD) and the low FODMAP diet (LFD). A consensus meeting was held to assess the role of these dietary therapies in IBS, in Sheffield, United Kingdom.Evidence for TDA is from case control studies and clinical experience. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) have demonstrated the benefit of soluble fibre in IBS. No studies have assessed TDA in comparison to a habitual or sham diet. There have been a number of RCTs demonstrating the efficacy of a GFD at short-term follow-up, with a lack of long-term outcomes. Whilst gluten may lead to symptom generation in IBS, other components of wheat may also play an important role, with recent interest in the role of fructans, wheat germ agglutinins, as well as alpha amylase trypsin inhibitors. There is good evidence for the use of a LFD at short-term follow-up, with emerging evidence demonstrating its efficacy at long-term follow-up. There is overlap between the LFD and GFD with IBS patients self-initiating gluten or wheat reduction as part of their LFD. Currently, there is a lack of evidence to suggest superiority of one diet over another, although TDA is more acceptable to patients.In view of this evidence, our consensus group recommends that dietary therapies for IBS should be offered by dietitians who first assess dietary triggers and then tailor the intervention according to patient choice. Given the lack of dietetic services, novel approaches such as employing group clinics and online webinars may maximise capacity and accessibility for patients. Further research is also required to assess the comparative efficacy of dietary therapies to other management strategies available to manage IBS.

We read the article by Ibrahim and Stribling [...]

LINKED CONTENTThis article is linked to Wang et al and Tuck et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15419 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15560.