Prevalence of joint hypermobility, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and orthostatic hypotension in school-children. / Prevalencia de la hipermovilidad articular, el síndrome de taquicardia postural (POTS) y la hipotensión ortostática en escolares.

INTRODUCTION: Children with joint hypermobility, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and orthostatic hypotension report autonomic symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, headaches, and palpitations. It is unclear if there is a pathophysiological link between connective tissue disorders and autonomic symptoms. There is no published data on the prevalence of disorder at the community level. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of joint hypermobility, orthostatic hypotension, and postural or thostatic tachycardia syndrome in children. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship bet ween joint hypermobility, orthostatic hypotension, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Participants aged 10 to 18 years were selected from public schools in three Colombian cities. The surveys included historical questions on the incidence of dizziness, nausea, headache, tremor, blurred vision, vertigo, anxiety, near syncope and syncope, sweating, palpitations triggered by standing in the two months prior to the investigation. Each of these signs and symptoms was also assessed during the recumbency (10 minutes) and standing (2, 5 and 10 minutes) phases of the investigation. HR and BP measurements were obtained at the same intervals. Joint mobility was measured with a mechanical goniometer and assessed with the Beighton score. RESULTS: Prevalence of joint hyperlaxity: 87 of 306 (28.4%). Prevalence of orthostatic hypotension: 5 of 306 (1.6%). Prevalen ce of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome: 6 of 306 (2.0%). Of 87 children with joint hyperlaxi ty, only 1 child had joint hyperlaxity at the same time as postural hypotension (1.2%) (p = 0.6735), and 1 child had joint hyperlaxity and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome simultaneously (1.2%) (p = 0.5188). CONCLUSION: Children with joint hyperlaxity did not have a higher prevalence of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and orthostatic hypotension. It seems unlikely that con nective tissue disorders are responsible for most cases of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and orthostatic hypotension in the community. Of note, the pathophysiology of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and orthostatic hypotension requires further investigation.

Probiotics for treatment of chronic constipation in children.

BACKGROUND: Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up to 25% of visits to paediatric gastroenterologists. Probiotic preparations may sufficiently alter the gut microbiome and promote normal gut physiology in a way that helps relieve functional constipation. Several studies have sought to address this hypothesis, as well as the role of probiotics in other functional gut disorders. Therefore, it is important to have a focused review to assess the evidence to date. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the management of chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children. SEARCH METHODS: On 28 June 2021, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, WHO ICTR, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with no language, date, publication status, or document type limitations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) compared to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in people aged between 0 and 18 years old with a diagnosis of functional constipation according to consensus criteria (such as Rome IV). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (1127 randomised participants): 12 studies assessed probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation, whilst two studies investigated synbiotic preparations. Three studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to the frequency of defecation at study end, but we did not pool them as there was very significant unexplained heterogeneity. Four studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to treatment success. There may be no difference in global improvement/treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.26; 313 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, with the pooled effect suggesting there may be no difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.95; 357 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pooled estimate from three studies that compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone found there may be no difference in frequency of defecation (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.56; 268 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to global improvement/treatment success, and found there may be no difference between the treatments (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies compared probiotics plus osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, but it is unclear if there is a difference between them (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.35; 268 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics versus magnesium oxide. It is unclear if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.14; 36 participants), treatment success (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57; 36 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04; 77 participants). The certainty of the evidence is very low for these outcomes. One study assessed the role of a synbiotic preparation in comparison to placebo. There may be higher treatment success in favour of synbiotics compared to placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.47; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study assessed a synbiotic plus paraffin compared to paraffin alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.74, 95% CI -0.96, 2.44; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or treatment success (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study compared a synbiotic preparation to paraffin. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD -1.53, 95% CI -3.00, -0.06; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or in treatment success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65, 1.13; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. All secondary outcomes were either not reported or reported in a way that did not allow for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether probiotics are efficacious in successfully treating chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children or changing the frequency of defecation, or whether there is a difference in withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There is limited evidence from one study to suggest a synbiotic preparation may be more likely than placebo to lead to treatment success, with no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to draw efficacy or safety conclusions about the use of probiotics in combination with or in comparison to any of the other interventions reported. The majority of the studies that presented data on serious adverse events reported that no events occurred. Two studies did not report this outcome. Future studies are needed to confirm efficacy, but the research community requires guidance on the best context for probiotics in such studies, considering where they should be best considered in a potential treatment hierarchy and should align with core outcome sets to support future interpretation of findings.

The impact of incorporating toilet-training status in the pediatric Rome IV criteria for functional constipation in infant and toddlers.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of functional constipation (FC) is based on the Rome criteria. The last edition of the criteria (Rome IV) for infants and toddlers modified the criteria to differentiate toilet-trained (TT) and non-toilet-trained (NTT) children. These changes have not been validated. We aimed to understand the impact of adding toilet training to the diagnostic criteria and to assess the prevalence of FC. METHODS: Parents of infants and toddlers from six outpatient clinics (four public, two private) located in three geographically dispersed cities in Colombia completed validated questionnaires to diagnose functional gastrointestinal disorders according to Spanish version of Rome IV criteria (QPGS-IV). RESULTS: A total of 1334 children (24.4 months ±15.0) participated: 482 (36%) TT and 852 (64%) NTT. The prevalence of FC was 21.1%. The prevalence increased with age, 0-1 years 7.7%; 2 years 18.2%; 3 years 23.7%; and 4 years 37.2%. TT vs NTT for FC 41.9% vs 9.3%, respectively (OR 7.06, 95% CI 5.26-9.47, P < .0001). TT more likely to report ≥ 3 criteria (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.41-4.21, P = .0015). 18.3% of TT had episodes of fecal incontinence that met the frequency required by Rome for FC (≤1 episode/week). However, 87.1% had fecal incontinence less often. 7.4% of them characterized as large quantity. CONCLUSION: We found no changes in the prevalence of FC using the Rome IV criteria vs Rome III. TT children are more likely to have FC. Study suggests that changes in Rome IV criteria were potentially clinically relevant and to have adequate face validity. Future studies should confirm our findings.

Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders, Autonomic Nervous System Dysfunction, and Joint Hypermobility in Children: Are They Related?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of orthostatic intolerance and joint hypermobility in schoolchildren with and without functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) and to assess autonomic nervous system dysfunction in children with FGIDs and joint hypermobility. STUDY DESIGN: Schoolchildren (10-18 years) attending public schools from 3 Colombian cities (Cali, Palmira, and Bucaramanga) completed validated questionnaires for FGIDs and underwent testing for hypermobility and autonomic nervous system dysfunction. Heart rate and blood pressure were assessed in recumbency and upright position at regular intervals. The differences in characteristics between schoolchildren with and without FGIDs were compared with a t-test for continuous variables and with a Fisher exact test (2 × 2 contingency tables) for categorical variables. RESULTS: In total, 155 children with FGIDs were matched with 151 healthy controls. Children with FGIDs had historically significant greater frequency of 10 of 12 symptoms of orthostatic intolerance, no significant difference in any symptoms of orthostatic intolerance during recumbency, significantly greater frequency in 6 of 12 symptoms of orthostatic intolerance during orthostasis, trend toward statistical significance for orthostatic intolerance (P = .0509), and no significant difference in prevalence of orthostatic hypotension (OH) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). There was no significant difference in prevalence of orthostatic intolerance, OH, and POTS between those with joint hypermobility and those without. CONCLUSIONS: Children with FGIDs have a greater prevalence of symptoms of orthostatic intolerance but were not more likely to have OH and POTS as compared with children without FGIDs. Children with joint hypermobility did not have a greater prevalence of orthostatic intolerance, OH, and POTS.