Chronic constipation diagnosis and treatment evaluation: the "CHRO.CO.DI.T.E." study.

BACKGROUND: According to Rome criteria, chronic constipation (CC) includes functional constipation (FC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). Some patients do not meet these criteria (No Rome Constipation, NRC). The aim of the study was is to evaluate the various clinical presentation and management of FC, IBS-C and NRC in Italy. METHODS: During a 2-month period, 52 Italian gastroenterologists recorded clinical data of FC, IBS-C and NRC patients, using Bristol scale, PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL questionnaires. In addition, gastroenterologists were also asked to record whether the patients were clinically assessed for CC for the first time or were in follow up. Diagnostic tests and prescribed therapies were also recorded. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-eight consecutive CC patients (706 F) were enrolled (FC 62.5%, IBS-C 31.3%, NRC 6.2%). PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL scores were higher in IBS-C than in FC and NRC. 49.5% were at their first gastroenterological evaluation for CC. In 48.5% CC duration was longer than 10 years. A specialist consultation was requested in 31.6%, more frequently in IBS-C than in NRC. Digital rectal examination was performed in only 56.4%. Diagnostic tests were prescribed to 80.0%. Faecal calprotectin, thyroid tests, celiac serology, breath tests were more frequently suggested in IBS-C and anorectal manometry in FC. More than 90% had at least one treatment suggested on chronic constipation, most frequently dietary changes, macrogol and fibers. Antispasmodics and psychotherapy were more frequently prescribed in IBS-C, prucalopride and pelvic floor rehabilitation in FC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBS-C reported more severe symptoms and worse quality of life than FC and NRC. Digital rectal examination was often not performed but at least one diagnostic test was prescribed to most patients. Colonoscopy and blood tests were the "first line" diagnostic tools. Macrogol was the most prescribed laxative, and prucalopride and pelvic floor rehabilitation represented a "second line" approach. Diagnostic tests and prescribed therapies increased by increasing CC severity.

Diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence: Consensus statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists.

Faecal incontinence is a common and disturbing condition, which leads to impaired quality of life and huge social and economic costs. Although recent studies have identified novel diagnostic modalities and therapeutic options, the best diagnostic and therapeutic approach is not yet completely known and shared among experts in this field. The Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists selected a pool of experts to constitute a joint committee on the basis of their experience in treating pelvic floor disorders. The aim was to develop a position paper on the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of faecal incontinence, to provide practical recommendations for a cost-effective diagnostic work-up and a tailored treatment strategy. The recommendations were defined and graded on the basis of levels of evidence in accordance with the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and were based on currently published scientific evidence. Each statement was drafted through constant communication and evaluation conducted both online and during face-to-face working meetings. A brief recommendation at the end of each paragraph allows clinicians to find concise responses to each diagnostic and therapeutic issue.

The daily diary and the questionnaire are not equivalent for the evaluation of bowel habits.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether questionnaires and diary cards, which are widely used to collect data on bowel habits, provide analogous information. AIMS: We verified the concordance between the data provided by a daily diary and a retrospective questionnaire. METHODS: A 4-week diary (DIARY) concerning bowel habits was compiled by 221 subjects. They were also asked to fill out a questionnaire on their bowel habits before (BEF) and after (AFT) the diary period. RESULTS: Concerning bowel movements, no significant difference was detected in the concordance between BEF and DIARY (rho: 0.80), AFT and DIARY (rho: 0.84), or BEF and AFT (rho: 0.84). The mean concordance in the other defecation-related parameters between BEF and DIARY (K: 0.62) and between DIARY and AFT (K: 0.63) were both significantly lower than that seen between BEF and AFT (K: 0.80; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: A considerable discrepancy between the two methods of assessment was found. The higher concordance between BEF and AFT than between DIARY and AFT regarding defecation-related parameters suggests that when a subject recalls events, even those from the recent past, he/she tends to generalize, reporting more or less the same data for different periods of time. These two instruments cannot be viewed as interchangeable, and their inherent differences must be taken into account when deciding which one to employ in different settings.

An extended assessment of bowel habits in a general population.

AIM: Bowel habits are difficult to study, and most data on defecatory behaviour in the general population have been obtained on the basis of recalled interview. The objective assessment of this physiological function and its pathological aspects continues to pose a difficult challenge. The aim of this prospective study was to objectively assess the bowel habits and related aspects in a large sample drawn from the general population. METHODS: Over a two-month period 488 subjects were prospectively recruited from the general population and asked to compile a daily diary on their bowel habits and associated signs and symptoms (the latter according to Rome II criteria). A total of 298 (61%) participants returned a correctly compiled record, so that data for more than 8 000 patient-days were available for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The average defecatory frequency was once per day (range of 0.25-3.25) and was similar between males and females. However, higher frequencies of straining at stool (P=0.001), a feeling of incomplete emptying and/or difficult evacuation (P=0.0001), and manual manoeuvres to facilitate defecation (P=0.046) were reported by females as compared to males. CONCLUSION: This study represents one of the first attempts to objectively and prospectively assess bowel habits in a sample of the general population over a relatively long period of time. The variables we analyzed are coherent with the criteria commonly used for the clinical assessment of functional constipation, and can provide a useful adjunct for a better evaluation of constipated patients.