Prospective comparison of diagnostic tests for bile acid diarrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Bile acid diarrhoea is often missed because gold standard nuclear medicine tauroselcholic [75-Se] acid (SeHCAT) testing has limited availability. Empirical treatment effect has unknown diagnostic performance, whereas plasma 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4) is inexpensive but lacks sensitivity. AIMS: To determine diagnostic characteristics of empirical treatment and explore improvements in diagnostics with potential better availability than SeHCAT. METHODS: This diagnostic accuracy study was part of a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of colesevelam. Consecutive patients with chronic diarrhoea attending SeHCAT had blood and stool sampled. Key thresholds were C4 > 46 ng/mL and SeHCAT retention ≤10%. A questionnaire recorded patient-reported empirical treatment effect. We analysed receiver operating characteristics and explored machine learning applied logistic regression and decision tree modelling with internal validation. RESULTS: Ninety-six (38%) of 251 patients had SeHCAT retention ≤10%. The effect of empirical treatment assessed with test results for bile acid studies blinded had 63% (95% confidence interval 44%-79%) sensitivity and 65% (47%-80%) specificity; C4 > 46 ng/mL had 47% (37%-57%) and 92% (87%-96%), respectively. A decision tree combining C4 ≥ 31 ng/mL with ≥1.1 daily watery stools (Bristol type 6 and 7) had 70% (51%-85%) sensitivity and 95% (83%-99%) specificity. The logistic regression model, including C4, the sum of measured stool bile acids and daily watery stools, had 77% (58%-90%) sensitivity and 93% (80%-98%) specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of bile acid diarrhoea using empirical treatment was inadequate. Exploration suggested considerable improvements in the sensitivity of C4-based testing, offering potential widely available diagnostics. Further validation is warranted. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03876717.

Efficacy and safety of colesevelam for the treatment of bile acid diarrhoea: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 4 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Bile acid diarrhoea is a common but overlooked cause of chronic watery diarrhoea. Plasma 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4) is an alternative to the gold standard tauroselcholic [75Se] acid (SeHCAT) test. Low-certainty evidence supports sequestrant treatment, including colesevelam. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of colesevelam in bile acid diarrhoea. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, investigator-initiated phase 4 trial of the sequestrant colesevelam in bile acid diarrhoea (SINBAD), we enrolled consecutive patients aged 18-79 years without inflammatory bowel disease attending SeHCAT testing for suspected bile acid diarrhoea at four Danish secondary care centres. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to receive 12 days of treatment with colesevelam (overencapsulated tablets of 625 mg) or placebo, with the starting dose of two capsules twice daily and titrated to effect during the first 5 days of treatment. A pharmacist independent of the clinical investigators generated a randomisation list on the web page randomization.com using block randomisation (randomisation was not stratified). C4 and SeHCAT diagnostic results were blinded during treatment. We treated all patients with diarrhoea, with a daily mean of 3·0 or more bowel movements or 1·0 or more watery bowel movements (Bristol stool scale type 6 and 7). Remission was defined as the absence of both these criteria during treatment days 6-12. The primary outcome was the intention-to-treat remission rate in bile acid diarrhoea diagnosed by C4 concentration greater than 46 ng/mL. A secondary outcome was the intention-to-treat remission rate in bile acid diarrhoea diagnosed by SeHCAT retention of 10% or less. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03876717. FINDINGS: Between Oct 25, 2018, and July 1, 2021, 168 patients were randomly assigned to receive colesevelam (n=84) or placebo (n=84). 41 patients had C4 concentration greater than 46 ng/mL (22 assigned to the colesevelam group and 19 to the placebo group). For the C4-defined primary outcome, 14 (64%) of 22 participants receiving colesevelam versus three (16%) of 19 participants receiving placebo achieved remission (adjusted odds ratio 9·1, 95% CI 1·9-62·8; p=0·011). For the SeHCAT-defined secondary outcome, 75 of the 168 participants had retention of less than 10% (37 assigned to the colesevelam group and 38 assigned to the placebo group); 22 (59%) of 37 participants receiving colesevelam achieved remission versus five (13%) of 38 participants receiving placebo (adjusted odds ratio 11·1, 95% CI 3·4-45·6; p=0·00020). There were no serious adverse events. Common adverse events were transient. For patients receiving colesevelam within the primary outcome population, five had abdominal pain, nine had bloating, and four had nausea. For patients receiving placebo, four had abdominal pain, four had bloating, and one had nausea. No participants with bile acid diarrhoea withdrew due to adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Colesevelam was superior to placebo at inducing remission of bile acid diarrhoea diagnosed with C4 concentration greater than 46 ng/mL. Secondary outcome data suggest similar efficacy treating SeHCAT-defined bile acid diarrhoea. Colesevelam was safe during the treatment. FUNDING: Fabrikant Vilhelm Pedersen og hustrus mindelegat; recommended by the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Biochemical Diagnosis of Bile Acid Diarrhea: Prospective Comparison With the 75Seleno-Taurohomocholic Acid Test.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of bile acid diarrhea is often missed because the availability of the seleno-taurohomocholic acid (SeHCAT) test is limited. We aimed to compare the biomarkers 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4) and fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) with the SeHCAT test. METHODS: Patients with chronic diarrhea without intestinal resection referred for SeHCAT were prospectively recruited for this diagnostic accuracy study. Blood was sampled at fasting and after a stimulation meal with chenodeoxycholic acid. SeHCAT retention ≤10% defined bile acid diarrhea and >10% defined miscellaneous diarrhea. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were analyzed with SeHCAT as the gold standard. www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03059537). RESULTS: Patients with bile acid diarrhea (n = 26) had mean C4 of 30 ng/mL (95% confidence interval: 19-46) vs 8 (7-11; P < 0.001) in the miscellaneous diarrhea group (n = 45). Area under the ROC curve (ROCAUC) for C4 was 0.83 (0.72-0.93). C4 < 15 ng/mL had 85% (74%-96%) negative predictive value; C4 > 48 ng/mL had 82% (59%-100%) positive predictive value. Twenty patients had C4 values 15-48 ng/mL, of whom 11/20 had SeHCAT ≤10%. Median fasting FGF19 was 72 pg/mL (interquartile range: 53-146) vs 119 (84-240) (P = 0.004); ROCAUC was 0.71 (0.58-0.83). Stimulated FGF19 responses did not differ (P = 0.54). DISCUSSION: We identified C4 thresholds with clinically useful predictive values for the diagnosis of and screening for bile acid diarrhea in patients with chronic watery diarrhea. Further validation of the cutoff values with the placebo-controlled effect of sequestrant therapy is warranted (see Visual Abstract, Supplementary Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B603).

Effect of teaching and type of stethoscope on cardiac auscultatory performance.

BACKGROUND: Auscultation of the heart is a routine procedure. It is not known whether auscultatory skills can be improved by teaching or with the use of an advanced stethoscope. METHODS: This study was a randomized trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design. Seventy-two house officers were randomized to a simple or an advanced stethoscope and to a 4-hour course in auscultation or no course. The doctors auscultated 20 patients' hearts and categorized findings as normal or as one or more of 5 categories of heart diseases. Patients were selected such that 16 had a known heart disease as well as a corresponding murmur and 4 had no heart disease or murmur. Auscultatory performance was assessed as concordance with echocardiographic findings and interobserver variation. RESULTS: Doctors using the advanced stethoscope diagnosed 35% of the patients correctly, as compared with doctors using the simple stethoscope who did 33% of the patients (P = .27). Similarly, 34% of the patients were diagnosed correctly by doctors who had received teaching as compared with 33% of those who were by doctors who had received no teaching (P = .41). The kappa values were higher for doctors who had received teaching for aortic stenosis (0.43 vs 0.28, P = .004) and ventricular septum defect (0.07 vs 0.01, P = .003). There was no difference between groups for any other single murmur or for the detection of murmurs as such. CONCLUSION: Heart auscultation findings were in poor accordance with echocardiographic findings and had high interobserver variation. Neither outcome improved to any important extent with the subjects' use of an advanced stethoscope or attending of a course in heart auscultation.