BACKGROUND Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has significant mental and physical comorbidities. However, little is known about the day-to-day burden these comorbidities place on quality of life (QOL), physical and mental function, distress, and symptoms of patients. METHODS We collected cross sectional data from 175 patients with IBS, diagnosed based on Rome III criteria (median age, 41 y; 78% women), referred to 2 specialty care clinics. Patients completed psychiatric interviews, a physical comorbidity checklist, the IBS symptom severity scale, the IBS quality of life instrument, the brief symptom inventory, the abdominal pain intensity scale, and the SF-12 health survey. RESULTS Patients with IBS reported an average of 5 comorbidities (1 mental, 4 physical). Subjects with more comorbidities reported worse QOL after adjusting for confounding variables. Multiple linear regression analyses indicated that comorbidity type was more consistently and strongly associated with illness burden indicators than disease counts. Of 10, 296 possible physical–mental comorbidity pairs, 6 of the 10 most frequent dyads involved specific conditions (generalized anxiety, depression, back pain, agoraphobia, tension headache, insomnia). These combinations were consistently associated with greater illness and symptom burdens (QOL, mental and physical function, distress, more severe symptoms of IBS, pain). CONCLUSIONS Comorbidities are common among patients with IBS. They are associated with distress and reduced QOL. Specific comorbidities are associated with more severe symptoms of IBS.

IMPORTANCEAdverse events (AEs) after placebo treatment are common in randomized clinical drug trials. Systematic evidence regarding these nocebo responses in vaccine trials is important for COVID-19 vaccination worldwide especially because concern about AEs is reported to be a reason for vaccination hesitancy. OBJECTIVE To compare the frequencies of AEs reported in the placebo groups of COVID-19 vaccine trials with those reported in the vaccine groups. DATA SOURCES For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Medline (PubMed) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched systematically using medical subheading terms and free-text keywords for trials of COVID-19 vaccines published up to July 14, 2021. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines that investigated adults aged 16 years or older were selected if they assessed solicited AEs within 7 days of injection, included an inert placebo arm, and provided AE reports for both the vaccine and placebo groups separately. Full texts were reviewed for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 reviewers, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline and using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were based on random-effects models. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcomes were the proportions of placebo recipients reporting overall, systemic, and local (injection-site) AEs as well as logarithmic odds ratios (ORs) to evaluate group differences. Outcomes were tested for significance using z tests with 95% CIs. RESULTSTwelve articles with AE reports for 45 380 participants (22 578 placebo recipients and 22 802 vaccine recipients) were analyzed. After the first dose, 35.2% (95% CI, 26.7%-43.7%) of placebo recipients experienced systemic AEs, with headache (19.3%; 95% CI, 13.6%-25.1%) and fatigue (16.7%; 95% CI, 9.8%-23.6%) being most common. After the second dose, 31.8% (95% CI, 28.7%-35.0%) of placebo recipients reported systemic AEs. The ratio between placebo and vaccine arms showed that nocebo responses accounted for 76.0% of systemic AEs after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose and for 51.8% after the second dose. Significantly more vaccine recipients reported AEs, but the group difference for systemic AEs was small after the first dose

Psychological interventions have been designed and implemented effectively in a wide range of medical conditions, including Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) and Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD). The psychological treatments for IBS and IBD with the strongest evidence base include: cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, and mindfulness-based therapies. The evidence for each of these therapies is reviewed here for both IBS and IBD. In general, there is a stronger and larger evidence base to support the use of psychological interventions in IBS compared with IBD. This is likely due to the high level of psychiatric comorbidity associated with IBS and the involvement of the stress-response in symptom presentation of IBS. Further research in psychosocial interventions for IBD is necessary. Finally, the importance of conceptualizing both IBS and IBD in a biopsychosocial model is discussed and several resources for accessing Clinical Health Psychology materials and referrals are provided.

No abstract

It is commonly believed that blinding to treatment assignment is necessary for placebos to have an effect. However, placebos administered without concealment (ie, open-label placebos [OLPs]) have recently been shown to be effective in some conditions. This study had 2 objectives: first, to determine whether OLP treatment is superior to no-pill control (NPC) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and, second, to compare the efficacy of OLP against double-blind placebo (DBP). In a 6-week, 3-arm, randomized clinical trial, participants were randomized in equal proportions to 3 arms: OLP, DBP, or NPC. Two hundred sixty-two adults (72.9% women), with a mean age of 42.0 (SD = 18.1) years, participated in the primary study. The mean improvement on the IBS Severity Scoring System from baseline to the 6-week end point was significantly greater in OLP compared with that in NPC (90.6 vs 52.3, P = 0.038). Open-label placebo and DBP did not differ significantly on IBS Severity Scoring System improvement (100.3 vs 90.6, P = 0.485). Standardized effect sizes were moderate for OLP vs NPC (d = 0.43) and small for OLP vs DBP (d = 0.10). Participants treated with OLP reported clinically meaningful improvements in IBS symptoms that were significantly greater than those on NPC. Open-label placebo and DBP had similar effects that did not differ significantly, suggesting that blinding may not be necessary for placebos to be effective and that OLP could play a role in the management of patients with refractory IBS.

No abstract

Background Despite the well-documented economic and psychosocial burden of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), few studies have focused on the impact of IBS on daily activities. The current study aims to quantify impairment in daily activities among IBS patients and to evaluate the relationship between impairment, IBS, quality of life, and psychiatric symptoms. Methods 179 participants meeting ROME-III criteria for IBS completed an online research survey evaluating the following variables: 1) the impact of IBS on daily activities, 2) comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, 3) symptom severity, 4) quality of life, and 5) and symptom-specific cognitive affective factors related to IBS. Key Results This sample reported a high degree of impairment due to IBS, with 76% of the sample reporting some degree of IBS-related impairment in at least 5 different domains of daily life. Rates of impairment were significantly higher for participants who met criteria for anxiety, depression, and/or panic disorder. Conclusions and inferences This study contributes to existing literature by demonstrating a high level of daily impairment among patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome, particularly those who meet criteria for anxiety, depression, and panic disorder. These findings support the importance of integrated psychosocial and medical care for IBS patients, and highlight the utility of evaluation and intervention for behavioral avoidance/impairment especially among those who exhibit signs or symptoms of psychiatric diagnoses.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found μ-opioid-receptor antagonists to be safe and effective for the treatment of OIC. Prescription-strength laxatives (prucalopride, lubiprostone) are slightly better than placebo in reducing OIC.