The analysis of gut microbiota in patients with bile acid diarrhoea treated with colesevelam.

Introduction: Bile acid diarrhoea (BAD) is a common disorder that results from an increased loss of primary bile acids and can result in a change in microbiome. The aims of this study were to characterise the microbiome in different cohorts of patients with BAD and to determine if treatment with a bile acid sequestrant, colesevelam, can alter the microbiome and improve microbial diversity. Materials and methods: Patients with symptoms of diarrhoea underwent 75-selenium homocholic acid (75SeHCAT) testing and were categorised into four cohorts: idiopathic BAD, post-cholecystectomy BAD, post-operative Crohn's disease BAD and 75SeHCAT negative control group. Patients with a positive 75SeHCAT (<15%) were given a trial of treatment with colesevelam. Stool samples were collected pre-treatment, 4-weeks, 8-weeks and 6-12 months post-treatment. Faecal 16S ribosomal RNA gene analysis was undertaken. Results: A total of 257 samples were analysed from 134 patients. α-diversity was significantly reduced in patients with BAD and more specifically, in the idiopathic BAD cohort and in patients with severe disease (SeHCAT <5%); p < 0.05. Colesevelam did not alter bacterial α/ß-diversity but patients who clinically responded to treatment had a significantly greater abundance of Fusobacteria and Ruminococcus, both of which aid in the conversion of primary to secondary bile acids. Conclusion: This is the first study to examine treatment effects on the microbiome in BAD, which demonstrated a possible association with colesevelam on the microbiome through bile acid modulation in clinical responders. Larger studies are now needed to establish a causal relationship with colesevelam and the inter-crosstalk between bile acids and the microbiome.

The impact of treatment with bile acid sequestrants on quality of life in patients with bile acid diarrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Bile acid diarrhoea (BAD) can be severely debilitating and negatively affect patients' quality of life (QoL). We carried out a multi-centre prospective study exploring QoL outcomes in patients with BAD after treatment with colesevelam. METHODS: Patients with or without a positive 23-seleno-25-homotaurocholic acid (SeHCAT) scan were recruited and categorised into four groups: SeHCAT negative control group (CG), idiopathic BAD, post-cholecystectomy (PC) and post-terminal ileal resection for Crohn's disease (CD). Patients with a positive SeHCAT were treated with colesevelam and dosing was titrated to symptomatic response. Patients were reviewed at 4- and 8-weekly intervals and QoL was evaluated by EQ-5D-3L, SF-36, IBDQ-32 at each visit (where relevant). Patients with a negative SeHCAT (CG cohort) completed one set of questionnaires before being discharged from the study. RESULTS: 47 patients (BAD = 24, PC = 12, CD = 11) completed paired QoL questionnaires before and after treatment and 30 CG patients completed a baseline questionnaire. There was a significant improvement in IBDQ-32 mean scores before and after treatment in CD patients [134.6 (95%CI 112.5-156.6) and 158.4 (136.1-180.6), respectively (p = 0.007). Following treatment, BAD patients had significantly improved mean SF-36 scores in the "Role limitation due to physical health" dimension (p = 0.02) and in the overall mental component summary (p = 0.03). Prior to starting treatment, BAD patients had the lowest scores in the 'activity' dimension of the EQ-5D-3L (p = 0.04), which improved significantly after treatment (p = 0.002). Overall, the BAD and CD cohort showed improved mean scores with treatment in all components of the SF-36 and EQ-5D-3L, while the PC cohort showed a general decline in mean scores after treatment. 55% of patients clinically responded to treatment of which 41.7%, 58.3% and 81.8% responded from the BAD, PC and CD groups respectively. Correlations between those deemed as responders with improvements on the SF-36 and EQ-5D dimensions were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate improved QoL in the BAD and CD cohort with treatment. Further larger studies are recommended specifically investigating the PC cohort and whether patients may improve with newer treatments such as FXR agonists. Trial registration Ethical approval REC Ref: 16/LO/1325.

A single faecal bile acid stool test demonstrates potential efficacy in replacing SeHCAT testing for bile acid diarrhoea in selected patients.

This study examines the validity of measuring faecal bile acids (FBA) in a single stool sample as a diagnostic tool for bile acid diarrhoea (BAD) by direct comparison to the 75selenium-homotaurocholic acid (SeHCAT) scan. A prospective observational study was undertaken. Patients with chronic diarrhoea (> 6 weeks) being investigated for potential BAD with SeHCAT scan provided stool samples for measurement of FBA, using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Patients were characterised into four groups: SeHCAT negative control group, post-cholecystectomy, idiopathic BAD and post-operative terminal ileal resected Crohn's disease. Stool samples were collected at baseline and 8-weeks post treatment to determine whether FBA measurement could be used to monitor therapeutic response. 113 patients had a stool sample to directly compare with their SeHCAT result. FBA concentrations (µmol/g) and interquartile ranges in patients in the control group (2.8; 1.6-4.2), BAD (3.6; 1.9-7.2) and post-cholecystectomy cohort 3.8 (2.3-6.8) were similar, but all were significantly lower (p < 0.001) compared to the Crohn's disease cohort (11.8; 10.1-16.2). FBA concentrations in patients with SeHCAT retention of < 15% (4.95; 2.6-10.5) and < 5% (9.9; 4.8-15.4) were significantly higher than those with a SeHCAT retention > 15% (2.6; 1.6-4.2); (p < 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity using FBA cut-off of 1.6 µmol/g (using ≤ 15% SeHCAT retention as diagnostic of BAD) were 90% and 25% respectively. A single random stool sample may have potential use in diagnosing severe BAD or BAD in Crohn's patients. Larger studies are now needed to confirm the potential efficacy of this test to accurately diagnose BAD in the absence of SeHCAT testing.