Impact of symptom severity in patients with diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D): results from two separate surveys of HCPs and patients with IBS-D.
Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel
Australia
Canada
Cost of Illness
Diarrhea
/ diagnosis
Europe
Female
Health Care Surveys
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health Surveys
Humans
Internet
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
/ classification
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Retrospective Studies
Severity of Illness Index
Diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome
Gastrointestinal symptom rating scale
IBS
Outcomes research
Patient-reported outcomes
Journal
BMC gastroenterology
ISSN: 1471-230X
Titre abrégé: BMC Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968547
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Apr 2020
26 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
31
05
2019
accepted:
30
03
2020
entrez:
28
4
2020
pubmed:
28
4
2020
medline:
29
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Management of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) is generally based on patient-reported symptoms; however, limited information on symptom severity exists. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of IBS-D severity on patient burden and patient and healthcare professional attitudes towards IBS. We conducted two web-based surveys of healthcare professionals and patients from Australia, Canada and Europe. We analysed patient characteristics and attitudes by IBS-D severity, which was assessed retrospectively using a composite of four variables: worst abdominal pain, IBS symptom frequency, Bristol Stool Form Scale and quality of life. Of 679 healthcare professional respondents, one-third routinely classified patients by severity. The patient survey was completed by 513 patients with mild (26%), moderate (33%) and severe (41%) IBS-D, classified using the composite scale. Age, sex and treatment satisfaction did not change with severity; however, 19% of patients classified with severe IBS-D agreed with the statement: 'When my IBS is bad, I wish I was dead' versus 4 and 7% of patients with mild and moderate IBS-D, respectively (p < 0.05). Significantly more patients classified with severe IBS-D reported medication use versus mild IBS-D. Compared with milder symptoms, severe IBS-D was associated with increased medication use and a negative perspective of IBS-D. This highlights the need for a validated severity scale to inform treatment decisions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Management of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) is generally based on patient-reported symptoms; however, limited information on symptom severity exists. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of IBS-D severity on patient burden and patient and healthcare professional attitudes towards IBS.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted two web-based surveys of healthcare professionals and patients from Australia, Canada and Europe. We analysed patient characteristics and attitudes by IBS-D severity, which was assessed retrospectively using a composite of four variables: worst abdominal pain, IBS symptom frequency, Bristol Stool Form Scale and quality of life.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 679 healthcare professional respondents, one-third routinely classified patients by severity. The patient survey was completed by 513 patients with mild (26%), moderate (33%) and severe (41%) IBS-D, classified using the composite scale. Age, sex and treatment satisfaction did not change with severity; however, 19% of patients classified with severe IBS-D agreed with the statement: 'When my IBS is bad, I wish I was dead' versus 4 and 7% of patients with mild and moderate IBS-D, respectively (p < 0.05). Significantly more patients classified with severe IBS-D reported medication use versus mild IBS-D.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with milder symptoms, severe IBS-D was associated with increased medication use and a negative perspective of IBS-D. This highlights the need for a validated severity scale to inform treatment decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32336287
doi: 10.1186/s12876-020-01252-9
pii: 10.1186/s12876-020-01252-9
pmc: PMC7183708
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
127Subventions
Organisme : Allergan plc
ID : N/A
Références
Qual Life Res. 2016 Dec;25(12):3197-3208
pubmed: 27342236
United European Gastroenterol J. 2018 Nov;6(9):1417-1427
pubmed: 30386615
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jan 7;21(1):292-300
pubmed: 25574104
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Jul;10(7):712-721.e4
pubmed: 22426087
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 May;108(5):634-41
pubmed: 23644955
Gastroenterology. 2006 Apr;130(5):1480-91
pubmed: 16678561
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009 Jul;43(6):541-50
pubmed: 19384249
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1997 Apr;11(2):395-402
pubmed: 9146781
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2017 Sep;10(9):673-687
pubmed: 28932269
Adv Ther. 2017 Mar;34(3):587-598
pubmed: 28083815
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Apr 18;13:49
pubmed: 25925746
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Apr;22(4):420-8
pubmed: 19923998
Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Oct;106(10):1749-59; quiz 1760
pubmed: 21747417
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Aug;24(8):950-7
pubmed: 22617366
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Feb;4(1):1-3
pubmed: 20136583
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Oct;15(10):1565-1571.e3
pubmed: 28286196
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Dec 09;12:176
pubmed: 25492701
Educ Psychol Meas. 2016 Jun;76(3):357-386
pubmed: 27182074
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005 Aug;3(8):717-25
pubmed: 16233998
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Oct 11;4:79
pubmed: 17034633
Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2004 Jan;28(1):11-5
pubmed: 15041804
Gastroenterology. 2016 Feb 18;:
pubmed: 27144627
Qual Life Res. 2015 Aug;24(8):1845-56
pubmed: 25663636
Qual Life Res. 2013 Oct;22(8):1889-905
pubmed: 23288613
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Nov;9(11):957-964.e1
pubmed: 21699821