Virginia Flores1, Helena Martínez-Lozano1, Federico Bighelli1, Javier Orcajo2, Javier García-Lledó1, Juan Carlos Alonso-Farto2, Luis Menchén3,4,5. 1. Servicio de Aparato Digestivo, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón - Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, C/ Dr. Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain. 2. Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón - Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. 3. Servicio de Aparato Digestivo, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón - Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, C/ Dr. Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain. lamenchen.hgugm@salud.madrid.org. 4. Departamento de Medicina, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas Y Digestivas (CIBEREHD), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. lamenchen.hgugm@salud.madrid.org. 5. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas Y Digestivas (CIBEREHD), Madrid, Spain. lamenchen.hgugm@salud.madrid.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bile acid malabsorption occurs in up to one third of patients with chronic diarrhoea of functional characteristics. The gold standard test for its diagnosis is the 75Selenium homocholic acid taurine (75SeHCAT) test. The aim of this work is to confirm previous data suggesting that bile acid malabsorption, diagnosed by 75Se-HCAT test, is the underlying cause of diarrhoea in a significant proportion of patients previously diagnosed with a functional disorder. In addition, we have analysed the clinical response of bile acid sequestrants in those patients with a bile acid diarrhoea diagnosis. METHODS: This is a prospective, single-centre study including consecutive adult patients diagnosed with chronic diarrhoea of unknown origin and with functional characteristics; systematic rule out of common causes of chronic diarrhoea was performed before bile acid malabsorption evaluation by 75SeHCAT scanning. A retention percentage less than 10% was considered positive. Clinical response to cholestyramine was further evaluated in those patients with a positive diagnosis of bile acid diarrhoea RESULTS: 38 patients (20 male, mean age 37.5 years) were finally included. Twenty (52.6%) patients included had a positive 75SeHCAT test. Median body mass index was significantly higher in those patients. We did not find significant differences in other clinical or biochemical variables 75SeHCAT-positive and 75SeHCAT-negative groups. Only 6 of 17 (35.3%) patients responded to cholestyramine treatment; 10 patients did not have response or withdraw the drug due to adverse events. Logistic regression analysis showed that none of the included variables was a predictor of clinical response to cholestyramine. CONCLUSIONS: Bile acid malabsorption occurs in a high proportion of patients suffering from chronic diarrhoea with functional characteristics. Systematic investigation of bile acid malabsorption should be included in the diagnostic algorithms of patients with chronic watery diarrhoea in the routine clinical practice. Absence of response to cholestyramine does not rule out bile acid diarrhoea.
BACKGROUND:Bile acid malabsorption occurs in up to one third of patients with chronic diarrhoea of functional characteristics. The gold standard test for its diagnosis is the 75Selenium homocholic acid taurine (75SeHCAT) test. The aim of this work is to confirm previous data suggesting that bile acid malabsorption, diagnosed by 75Se-HCAT test, is the underlying cause of diarrhoea in a significant proportion of patients previously diagnosed with a functional disorder. In addition, we have analysed the clinical response of bile acid sequestrants in those patients with a bile aciddiarrhoea diagnosis. METHODS: This is a prospective, single-centre study including consecutive adult patients diagnosed with chronic diarrhoea of unknown origin and with functional characteristics; systematic rule out of common causes of chronic diarrhoea was performed before bile acid malabsorption evaluation by 75SeHCAT scanning. A retention percentage less than 10% was considered positive. Clinical response to cholestyramine was further evaluated in those patients with a positive diagnosis of bile aciddiarrhoea RESULTS: 38 patients (20 male, mean age 37.5 years) were finally included. Twenty (52.6%) patients included had a positive 75SeHCAT test. Median body mass index was significantly higher in those patients. We did not find significant differences in other clinical or biochemical variables 75SeHCAT-positive and 75SeHCAT-negative groups. Only 6 of 17 (35.3%) patients responded to cholestyramine treatment; 10 patients did not have response or withdraw the drug due to adverse events. Logistic regression analysis showed that none of the included variables was a predictor of clinical response to cholestyramine. CONCLUSIONS:Bile acid malabsorption occurs in a high proportion of patients suffering from chronic diarrhoea with functional characteristics. Systematic investigation of bile acid malabsorption should be included in the diagnostic algorithms of patients with chronic watery diarrhoea in the routine clinical practice. Absence of response to cholestyramine does not rule out bile aciddiarrhoea.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bile acid diarrhoea; Bile acid malabsorption; Cholestyramine; Functional diarrhoea; Irritable bowel syndrome; SeHCAT
Authors: F Fernández-Bañares; M Rosinach; M Piqueras; A Ruiz-Cerulla; I Modolell; Y Zabana; J Guardiola; M Esteve Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Lyubov Lytvyn; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Christina M Surawicz; William D Chey Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: J R F Walters; I M Johnston; J D Nolan; C Vassie; M E Pruzanski; D A Shapiro Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Fernando Fernández-Bañares; Anna Accarino; Agustín Balboa; Eugeni Domènech; Maria Esteve; Esther Garcia-Planella; Jordi Guardiola; Xavier Molero; Alba Rodríguez-Luna; Alexandra Ruiz-Cerulla; Javier Santos; Eva Vaquero Journal: Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-11-21 Impact factor: 2.102