OBJECTIVES: Adequate relief (AR) of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms (IBS-AR) has been used as a primary end point in many randomized controlled trials of IBS and is considered by the Rome III committee to be an acceptable primary end point. However, controversy exists on whether baseline severity confounds the effect of the treatment outcome. The aim (1) is to compare a subjective report of IBS-AR with global assessment of improvement (IBS-GAI), change in IBS symptom severity scale (IBS-SSS), and IBS quality of life (IBS-QOL); (2) to explore whether initial IBS symptom severity influences the ability of these outcome measures to detect differences post treatment; and (3) to determine whether psychological symptoms influence the sensitivity of these measures, in a randomized controlled treatment trial. METHODS: A total of 289 adult IBS patients were recruited to a treatment trial. Baseline IBS-SSS scores were used to classify IBS severity as mild (<175), moderate (175-300), or severe (>300). Questionnaires were completed at baseline and after 3 weeks of treatment with sham acupuncture or wait-list control. RESULTS:IBS baseline severity (IBS-SSS) significantly affected the proportion of patients who reported IBS-AR at 3 weeks (mild, 70%; moderate, 49.7%; severe, 38.8%) (P<0.05). However, once the patients who reported IBS-AR at baseline (28.0%) were excluded from the analysis, baseline severity no longer affected the proportion of patients reporting IBS-AR. Baseline severity did not have a significant effect on patients reporting moderate or significant improvement on the IBS-GAI (mild, 30%; moderate, 25.3%; severe, 18.8%) (P=NS). Psychological symptoms had no significant correlations with responders after adjusting for baseline severity. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that IBS-AR as an end point is inversely related to baseline symptom severity. However, if patients who report AR at screening were excluded from study participation, baseline symptom severity was no longer confounded with a report of AR at the study end point.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Adequate relief (AR) of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms (IBS-AR) has been used as a primary end point in many randomized controlled trials of IBS and is considered by the Rome III committee to be an acceptable primary end point. However, controversy exists on whether baseline severity confounds the effect of the treatment outcome. The aim (1) is to compare a subjective report of IBS-AR with global assessment of improvement (IBS-GAI), change in IBS symptom severity scale (IBS-SSS), and IBS quality of life (IBS-QOL); (2) to explore whether initial IBS symptom severity influences the ability of these outcome measures to detect differences post treatment; and (3) to determine whether psychological symptoms influence the sensitivity of these measures, in a randomized controlled treatment trial. METHODS: A total of 289 adult IBS patients were recruited to a treatment trial. Baseline IBS-SSS scores were used to classify IBS severity as mild (<175), moderate (175-300), or severe (>300). Questionnaires were completed at baseline and after 3 weeks of treatment with sham acupuncture or wait-list control. RESULTS: IBS baseline severity (IBS-SSS) significantly affected the proportion of patients who reported IBS-AR at 3 weeks (mild, 70%; moderate, 49.7%; severe, 38.8%) (P<0.05). However, once the patients who reported IBS-AR at baseline (28.0%) were excluded from the analysis, baseline severity no longer affected the proportion of patients reporting IBS-AR. Baseline severity did not have a significant effect on patients reporting moderate or significant improvement on the IBS-GAI (mild, 30%; moderate, 25.3%; severe, 18.8%) (P=NS). Psychological symptoms had no significant correlations with responders after adjusting for baseline severity. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that IBS-AR as an end point is inversely related to baseline symptom severity. However, if patients who report AR at screening were excluded from study participation, baseline symptom severity was no longer confounded with a report of AR at the study end point.
Authors: D A Drossman; D L Patrick; W E Whitehead; B B Toner; N E Diamant; Y Hu; H Jia; S I Bangdiwala Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: H Nyhlin; C Bang; L Elsborg; J Silvennoinen; I Holme; P Rüegg; J Jones; A Wagner Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: J Kellow; O Y Lee; F Y Chang; S Thongsawat; M Z Mazlam; H Yuen; K A Gwee; Y T Bak; J Jones; A Wagner Journal: Gut Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: E Kokkotou; L A Conboy; D C Ziogas; M T Quilty; J M Kelley; R B Davis; A J Lembo; T J Kaptchuk Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Anthony Lembo; John M Kelley; Judy Nee; Sarah Ballou; Johanna Iturrino; Vivian Cheng; Vikram Rangan; Jesse Katon; William Hirsch; Irving Kirsch; Kathryn Hall; Roger B Davis; Ted J Kaptchuk Journal: Pain Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Anna Lyra; Markku Hillilä; Teppo Huttunen; Sofia Männikkö; Mikko Taalikka; Julia Tennilä; Anneli Tarpila; Sampo Lahtinen; Arthur C Ouwehand; Lea Veijola Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 5.742