Explore the vast range of titles available.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) increase the risk for enteric infections that is likely related to PPI-induced hypochlorhydria. Although the impact of acid suppression on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is unknown thus far, previous data revealed that pH ≤3 impairs the infectivity of the similar severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1. Thus, we aimed to determine whether use of PPIs increases the odds for acquiring coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among community-dwelling Americans. From May 3 to June 24, 2020, we performed an online survey described to participating adults as a \"national health survey.\" A multivariable logistic regression was performed on reporting a positive COVID-19 test to adjust for a wide range of confounding factors and to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Of 53,130 participants, 3,386 (6.4%) reported a positive COVID-19 test. In regression analysis, individuals using PPIs up to once daily (aOR 2.15; 95% CI, 1.90-2.44) or twice daily (aOR 3.67; 95% CI, 2.93-4.60) had significantly increased odds for reporting a positive COVID-19 test when compared with those not taking PPIs. Individuals taking histamine-2 receptor antagonists were not at elevated risk. We found evidence of an independent, dose-response relationship between the use of antisecretory medications and COVID-19 positivity; individuals taking PPIs twice daily have higher odds for reporting a positive test when compared with those using lower-dose PPIs up to once daily, and those taking the less potent histamine-2 receptor antagonists are not at increased risk. These findings emphasize good clinical practice that PPIs should only be used when indicated at the lowest effective dose, such as the approved once-daily label dosage of over-the-counter and prescription PPIs. Further studies examining the association between PPIs and COVID-19 are needed.

The pathogenesis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)—a disorder of gut-brain interaction that affects up to 10% of the world's population—remains uncertain. It is puzzling that a disorder so prevalent and archetypal among humans can be explained by disparate theories, respond to treatments with vastly different mechanisms of action, and present with a dazzling array of comorbidities. It is reasonable to question whether there is a unifying factor that binds these divergent theories and observations, and if so, what that factor might be. This article offers a testable hypothesis that seeks to accommodate the manifold theories, clinical symptoms, somatic comorbidities, neuropsychological features, and treatment outcomes of IBS by describing the syndrome in relation to a principal force of human evolutiongravity. In short, the hypothesis proposed here is that IBS may result from ineffective anatomical, physiological, and neuropsychological gravity management systems designed to optimize gastrointestinal form and function, protect somatic and visceral integrity, and maximize survival in a gravity-bound world. To explain this unconventional hypothesis of IBS pathogenesis, referred to herein as the gravity hypothesis, this article reviews the influence of gravity on human evolution; discusses how Homo sapiens imperfectly evolved to manage this universal force of attraction; and explores the mechanical, microbial, and neuropsychological consequences of gravity intolerance with a focus on explaining IBS. This article concludes by considering the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of this new hypothesis and proposes experiments to support or reject this line of inquiry. It is hoped that the ideas in this thought experiment may also help encourage new or different ways of thinking about this common disorder.

Personal fitness trackers (PFT) have substantial potential to improve healthcare. To quantify and characterize early adopters who shared their PFT data with providers. We used bivariate statistics and logistic regression to compare patients who shared any PFT data vs. patients who did not. A patient portal was used to invite 79,953 registered portal users to share their data. Of 66,105 users included in our analysis, 499 (0.8%) uploaded data during an initial 37-day study period. Bivariate and regression analysis showed that early adopters were more likely than non-adopters to be younger, male, white, health system employees, and to have higher BMIs. Neither comorbidities nor utilization predicted adoption. Our results demonstrate that patients had little intrinsic desire to share PFT data with their providers, and suggest that patients most at risk for poor health outcomes are least likely to share PFT data. Marketing, incentives, and/or cultural change may be needed to induce such data-sharing.

Diverticular disease imposes a significant burden on Western and industrialized societies. The traditional pathogenesis model posits that low dietary fiber predisposes to diverticulosis, and fecalith obstruction prompts acute diverticulitis that is managed with broad-spectrum antibiotics or surgery. However, a growing body of knowledge is shifting the paradigm of diverticular disease from an acute surgical illness to a chronic bowel disorder composed of recurrent abdominal symptoms and considerable psychosocial impact. New research implicates a role for low-grade inflammation, sensory-motor nerve damage, and dysbiosis in a clinical picture that mimics irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and even inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Far from being an isolated event, acute diverticulitis may be the catalyst for chronic symptoms including abdominal pain, cramping, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, and \"post-diverticulitis IBS.\" In addition, studies reveal lower health-related quality of life in patients with chronic diverticular disease vs. controls. Health-care providers should maintain a high index of suspicion for the multifaceted presentations of diverticular disease, and remain aware that it might contribute to long-term emotional distress beyond traditional diverticulitis attacks. These developments are prompting a shift in therapeutic approaches from widespread antimicrobials and supportive care to the use of probiotics, mesalamine, and gut-directed antibiotics. This review addresses the emerging literature regarding epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of chronic, symptomatic diverticular disease, and provides current answers to common clinical questions.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) are functional bowel disorders. Evidence suggests that disturbance in the gastrointestinal microbiota may be implicated in both conditions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics in IBS and CIC. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to December 2013). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS or CIC, which compared prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics with placebo or no therapy, were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized or weighted mean difference with a 95% CI. The search strategy identified 3,216 citations. Forty-three RCTs were eligible for inclusion. The RR of IBS symptoms persisting with probiotics vs. placebo was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.89). Probiotics had beneficial effects on global IBS, abdominal pain, bloating, and flatulence scores. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics in IBS were sparse. Probiotics appeared to have beneficial effects in CIC (mean increase in number of stools per week=1.49; 95% CI=1.02-1.96), but there were only two RCTs. Synbiotics also appeared beneficial (RR of failure to respond to therapy=0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.92). Again, trials for prebiotics were few in number, and no definite conclusions could be drawn. Probiotics are effective treatments for IBS, although which individual species and strains are the most beneficial remains unclear. Further evidence is required before the role of prebiotics or synbiotics in IBS is known. The efficacy of all three therapies in CIC is also uncertain.

INTRODUCTION:We investigated the efficacy and safety of virtual reality (VR) for functional dyspepsia.METHODS:Patients were randomized 2:1 between active vs sham VR. Symptoms were assessed using the Patient Assessment of Gastrointestinal Disorders-Symptom Severity Index (PAGI-SYM) over 2-week.RESULTS:Patients in the active VR group had greater numerical improvement in PAGI-SYM scores (mean difference −0.7; P < 0.001) compared with sham VR (mean difference −0.4; P = 0.032). Active VR led to significant improvements for all PAGI-SYM subscales, except lower abdominal pain, whereas sham only improved heartburn/regurgitation and nausea/vomiting. Half of the total patients reported nonserious adverse effects, although only 1 patient withdrew from the study because of adverse effects.DISCUSSION:VR is safe and results in significant symptom improvement in functional dyspepsia. Larger trials are warranted.

Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is characterized by unsatisfactory defecation and difficult or infrequent stools. CIC affects 9%-20% of adults in the United States, and although prevalent, gaps in knowledge remain regarding CIC healthcare seeking and medication use in the community. We recruited a population-based sample to determine the prevalence and predictors of (i) individuals having discussed their constipation symptoms with a healthcare provider and (ii) the use of constipation therapies. We recruited a representative sample of Americans aged 18 years or older who had experienced constipation. Those who met the Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome and opioid-induced constipation were excluded. The survey included questions on constipation severity, healthcare seeking, and the use of constipation medications. We used multivariable regression methods to adjust for confounders. Overall, 4,702 participants had experienced constipation (24.0% met the Rome IV CIC criteria). Among all respondents with previous constipation, 37.6% discussed their symptoms with a clinician (primary care provider 87.6%, gastroenterologist 26.0%, and urgent care/emergency room physician 7.7%). Age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment status, having a source of usual care, insurance status, comorbidities, locus of control, and constipation severity were associated with seeking care (P < 0.05). Overall, 47.8% of respondents were taking medication to manage their constipation: over-the-counter medication(s) only, 93.5%; prescription medication(s) only, 1.3%; and both over-the-counter medication(s) and prescription medication(s), 5.2%. We found that 3 of 5 Americans with constipation have never discussed their symptoms with a healthcare provider. Furthermore, the use of prescription medications for managing constipation symptoms is low because individuals mainly rely on over-the-counter therapies.

ObjectivesDigestive diseases account for >100 million ambulatory care visits annually in the U.S. Yet, comparatively less is known about the true burden of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in the general U.S. population. The aim of this study was to use data from the “National GI Survey”—a population-based audit of GI symptoms in >71,000 participants—to determine the prevalence and predictors of GI symptoms in community-dwelling Americans.MethodsWe conducted the National GI Survey using a mobile app called MyGiHealth, which employs a computer algorithm that systematically collects participants’ GI symptoms. We recruited a nationally representative sample of Americans to complete the survey, which guided respondents through National Institutes of Health (NIH) GI Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) scales along with questions about relevant comorbidities and demographics. We measured the prevalence of GI symptoms in the past week and employed logistic regression to adjust for confounding.ResultsOverall, 71,812 individuals completed the survey, of which 61% reported having had ≥1 GI symptom in the past week. The most commonly reported symptoms were heartburn/reflux (30.9%), abdominal pain (24.8%), bloating (20.6%), diarrhea (20.2%), and constipation (19.7%). Less common symptoms were nausea/vomiting (9.5%), dysphagia (5.8%), and bowel incontinence (4.8%). Females, non-Hispanic whites, and individuals who were younger, highly educated, and had medical comorbidities were more likely to have symptoms (all adjusted p < 0.05).ConclusionsIn this large population-based study that combined digital health technology with NIH PROMIS questionnaires, we found that GI symptoms are highly prevalent, as nearly two thirds of surveyed Americans are burdened by these symptoms.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) most commonly presents with respiratory symptoms, including cough, shortness of breath, and sore throat. However, digestive symptoms also occur in patients with COVID-19 and are often described in outpatients with less severe disease. In this study, we sought to describe the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients with digestive symptoms and mild disease severity. We identified COVID-19 patients with mild disease and one or more digestive symptoms (diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting), with or without respiratory symptoms, and compared them with a group presenting solely with respiratory symptoms. We followed up patients clinically until they tested negative for COVID-19 on at least 2 sequential respiratory tract specimens collected ≥24 hours apart. We then compared the clinical features between those with digestive symptoms and those with respiratory symptoms. There were 206 patients with low severity COVID-19, including 48 presenting with a digestive symptom alone, 69 with both digestive and respiratory symptoms, and 89 with respiratory symptoms alone. Between the 2 groups with digestive symptoms, 67 presented with diarrhea, of whom 19.4% experienced diarrhea as the first symptom in their illness course. The diarrhea lasted from 1 to 14 days, with an average duration of 5.4 ± 3.1 days and a frequency of 4.3 ± 2.2 bowel movements per day. Concurrent fever was found in 62.4% of patients with a digestive symptom. Patients with digestive symptoms presented for care later than those with respiratory symptoms (16.0 ± 7.7 vs 11.6 ± 5.1 days, P < 0.001). Nevertheless, patients with digestive symptoms had a longer duration between symptom onset and viral clearance (P < 0.001) and were more likely to be fecal virus positive (73.3% vs 14.3%, P = 0.033) than those with respiratory symptoms. We describe a unique subgroup of COVID-19 patients with mild disease severity marked by the presence of digestive symptoms. These patients are more likely to test positive for viral RNA in stool, to have a longer delay before viral clearance, and to experience delayed diagnosis compared with patients with only respiratory symptoms.