The national prevalence of disorders of gut brain interaction in the United Kingdom in comparison to their worldwide prevalence: Results from the Rome foundation global epidemiology study.

BACKGROUND: There are minimal epidemiological data comparing the burden of disorders of gut brain interaction (DGBI) in the UK with other countries. We compared the prevalence of DGBI in the UK with other countries that participated in the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) online. METHODS: Participants from 26 countries completed the RFGES survey online including the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and an in-depth supplemental questionnaire with questions about dietary habits. UK sociodemographic and prevalence data were compared with the other 25 countries pooled together. KEY RESULTS: The proportion of participants with at least one DGBI was lower in UK participants compared with in the other 25 countries (37.6% 95% CI 35.5%-39.7% vs. 41.2%; 95% CI 40.8%-41.6%, p = 0.001). The UK prevalence of 14 of 22 Rome IV DGBI, including irritable bowel syndrome (4.3%) and functional dyspepsia (6.8%), was similar to the other countries. Fecal incontinence, opioid-induced constipation, chronic nausea and vomiting, and cannabinoid hyperemesis (p < 0.05) were more prevalent in the UK. Cyclic vomiting, functional constipation, unspecified functional bowel disorder, and proctalgia fugax (p < 0.05) were more prevalent in the other 25 countries. Diet in the UK population consisted of higher consumption of meat and milk (p < 0.001), and lower consumption of rice, fruit, eggs, tofu, pasta, vegetables/legumes, and fish (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The prevalence and burden of DGBI is consistently high in the UK and in the rest of the world. Opioid prescribing, cultural, dietary, and lifestyle factors may contribute to differences in the prevalence of some DGBI between the UK and other countries.

Progression of frailty as measured by a cumulative deficit index: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a risk factor for adverse health outcomes. There is a paucity of literature on frailty progression defined by a cumulative deficit model among community dwelling older people. The objective of this review was to synthesise evidence on these changes in health and mortality among community-dwelling older people. METHODS: Six databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycInfo, Web of Science) and a clinical trials registry were searched in July 2021. The inclusion criteria were studies using a frailty index and providing information on transition between frailty states or to death in community-dwelling older people aged ≥ 50. Exclusion criteria were studies examining specific health conditions, conference abstracts and non-English studies. To standardise the follow-up period and facilitate comparison, we converted the transition probabilities to annual transition rates. RESULTS: Two reviewers independently screened 5078 studies and 61 studies were included for analysis. Of these, only three used the same frailty state cut-points to facilitate cross-cohort comparison. This review found that frailty tends to increase with time, people who are frail at baseline have greater likelihood to progress in frailty and die, and the main factor that accelerates frailty progression is age. Other risk factors for progression are having chronic disease, smoking, obesity, low-income or/and low-education levels. A frailty index is an accurate predictor of adverse outcomes and death. DISCUSSION: This systematic review demonstrated that worsening in frailty was a common frailty transition, and older people who are frail at baseline are more likely to die. A frailty index has significant power to predict adverse health outcomes. It is a useful tool for within-cohort comparison but there are challenges comparing different cohorts due to dependence of frailty progression on age and differences in how frailty index is defined and measured.