Skip to main content
Frontline Gastroenterology logoLink to Frontline Gastroenterology
. 2018 Jul 26;10(1):72–76. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2018-101011

What is the cost of delayed diagnosis of bile acid malabsorption and bile acid diarrhoea?

Darren C R Fernandes 1, Dennis Poon 1, Laura L White 2, H Jervoise N Andreyev 1
PMCID: PMC6319159  PMID: 30651961

Abstract

Introduction

75Selenium taurocholic acid (SeHCAT) scanning diagnoses bile acid malabsorption/bile acid diarrhoea (BAM/BAD) and defines optimal treatment. Approximately 2% of the population have BAM/BAD.

Aim

To evaluate the cost of delayed diagnosis of BAM/BAD.

Methods

Patients’ notes who underwent SeHCAT scanning in three hospitals over a 1-year period were reviewed retrospectively. Scan results and treatment response were recorded. Package-of-care costs were calculated using costing tools from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and from United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust business unit.

Results

Between June 2016 and May 2017, 19 men and 37 women (median age 58 (range 19–83)) of 3860 new patients seen in gastroenterology clinics were referred for SeHCAT scanning. Sixty-four per cent of scans were abnormal: 13 demonstrated severe (<5% 7-day SeHCAT retention), 13 moderate (5%–10%), 5 mild (10%–15%) and 5 borderline (15%–20%) BAD/BAM. Likely causes included primary BAD (n=16), cholecystectomy (n=13), inflammatory bowel disease (n=4) and other (n=3). If SeHCAT scanning was ordered at first consultation (n=11), patients reported 24 months (median) of symptoms (range 6–360) and the median diagnostic package-of-care cost was £811.40 (95% CI £625.59 to £1508.20). If SeHCAT scanning was booked later (n=25), patients reported symptoms for 30 months (median, range 0.5–360) and the cost was £1568.31 (95% CI £1200.55 to £1713.18). Following diagnosis, treatment led to symptom improvement (n=24), no change/deterioration (n=3) and not reported (n=9).

Conclusions

SeHCAT is underused. Late diagnosis leads to unnecessary demands for other services and treatment delay. Early diagnosis achieves health benefits while reducing costs.

Keywords: bile, cost-effectiveness, diarrhoeal disease, health economics, irritable bowel syndrome


Significance of this study.

What is already known on this topic

  • Bile acid malabsorption/bile acid diarrhoea is often misdiagnosed as irritable bowel syndrome with 44% of patients having to tolerate their symptoms for 5 years before the correct diagnosis being made.

What this study adds

  • The diagnostic 75selenium taurocholic acid (SeHCAT) test remains enormously underused. Late diagnosis leads to unnecessary demands for other services which cost more than £750 per patient. Early diagnosis achieves health benefits while reducing costs.

How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future

  • Use of the SeHCAT scan early in the diagnostic process for patients with appropriate symptoms will save many unnecessary endoscopic procedures, reducing waiting lists and significantly cut the number of patients who need to be seen in gastrointestinal clinics in secondary care.

Introduction

Bile acid malabsorption (BAM) and bile acid diarrhoea (BAD) are two conditions characterised by symptoms which invariably include episodes of loose stool, but also can cause bowel frequency, urgency of defecation, faecal incontinence, nocturnal defecation, abdominal bloating, pain and steatorrhoea.1

Bile acids are released from the gall bladder into the duodenum following the dietary intake of long-chain fatty acids, aromatic-aliphatic amino acids and intact proteins.2 BAM occurs because of defective absorption in the terminal ileum due to ileal disease, mucosal dysfunction or surgical resection. BAD describes a syndrome characterised by the same symptoms (ie, not just diarrhoea) and is due to impaired FGF19 feedback inhibition by a non-diseased, intact ileum, resulting in excessive bile acid synthesis by the liver, overwhelming ileal absorptive capacity and resulting in excessive bile salts reaching the colon.3

Both conditions can be accurately diagnosed using a 75selenium taurocholic acid (SeHCAT) scan by any nuclear medicine department with a gamma camera. This test has a sensitivity of 89%–97% and a specificity of close to 100% for the diagnosis of BAM/BAD.4 5 The severity of the BAM/BAD as assessed by the SeHCAT scan has also been shown to be useful at determining optimal treatment1 with either low-fat diet or bile acid sequestrants or both which have been shown to lead to excellent symptom control.1 6 7 When SeHCAT is not available an alternative diagnostic test is 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.8 Recent guidelines suggest that an empirical trial of a bile acid sequestrant should be avoided.8

Primary BAD affects approximately 1% of the British population, and is often misdiagnosed as functional diarrhoea or diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D).9 Indeed, studies suggest 25%–33% of patients confidently diagnosed with IBS-D in fact have underlying primary BAD.10 11 There is a further large but as yet unquantified number of individuals who develop secondary BAM/BAD as a result of active Crohn’s disease,12 diabetes mellitus,13 cancer chemotherapy or radiotherapy,14–17 or following gastrointestinal surgery such as gastrectomy,12 18 cholecystectomy,12 pancreatic resection18 and ileal resection or right hemicolectomy.19 20 Failure to make the correct diagnosis has huge implications for patient outcomes and leads to additional and unnecessary tests, ineffective prescribed treatments and dysfunctional clinical consultations.

The aim of our study was to identify whether delayed diagnosis of BAM/BAD had any cost implications and the effect on patients.

Methods

The notes of all patients undergoing SeHCAT scanning in our trust over a 1-year period were reviewed retrospectively. The number of abnormal scans and patient response to treatment was recorded. Costs of additional clinics/tests/procedures performed before the diagnosis of BAM were calculated using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence costing tools published from 2013 onwards (table 1) and from the business unit at United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust. The cost of any prescribed treatments, however, was not included.

Table 1.

Costs used from figures provided by United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust and NICE costing tools

Appointment costs
 Gastroenterology new patient appointment 181.00
 Gastroenterology follow-up patient appointment 72.00
Procedure costs
 SeHCAT scan 381.00
 MRI scan with contrast 284.00
 Ultrasound abdomen 77.61
 CT scan abdomen and pelvis 172.00
 Diagnostic upper GI endoscopy with biopsy 323.42
 Flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy 365.59
 Colonoscopy with biopsy 544.45
 Hydrogen breath test 48.23
Blood tests/stool samples
 Full blood count 3.04
 ESR 3.04
 U&Es 3.88
 LFTs 4.85
 CRP 1.60
 TFTs 1.60
 Vitamin B12, folate and ferritin 8.61
 Vitamin D 17.00
 Coeliac screen 1.60
 Folate 8.61
 Gut hormones 70.00
 Faecal calprotectin 22.79
 Faecal elastase 22.79
 Stool for microbiology culture 7.49

CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; GI, gastrointestinal; LFT, liver function test; NICE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; SeHCAT, 75selenium taurocholic acid; TFT, thyroid function test; U&E, urea & electrolytes.

The SeHCAT studies were undertaken using an uncollimated gamma camera. The SeHCAT capsule was administered to the patient and then 4 hours later, an anterior and posterior 5 min count (background corrected) was acquired. A second count was performed 7 days later and the percentage retention for the patient was calculated. Patients’ response to treatment was assessed from information recorded in the clinic letters and hospital notes after the SeHCAT scan had been performed.

Results

A total of 3860 new patients were seen in the gastroenterology clinics in our trust which comprises three different hospitals between June 2016 and May 2017. Of these, 1.5% (19 men and 37 women, median age 58 (range 19–83)) were referred for SeHCAT scanning. Of these scans, 64% were abnormal: 13 demonstrated severe (<5% 7-day SeHCAT retention), 13 moderate (5%–10%), 5 mild (10%–15%) and 5 borderline (15%–20%) BAM/BAD. Underlying causes for BAM/BAD included primary BAD (n=16), cholecystectomy (n=13), inflammatory bowel disease (n=4), right hemicolectomy for bowel cancer (n=1), diabetes mellitus (n=1) and multiple possible causes (n=1).

If SeHCAT scanning was ordered at first consultation (n=11), patients reported 24 months (median) of symptoms (95% CI 6 to 360) and the median diagnostic package-of-care cost was £811.40 (95% CI £625.59 to £1508.20). Additional findings were found in four of these patients: diverticulosis (n=2), oesophagitis (n=1), adenomatous polyps (n=1) and duodenal diverticulum (n=1). If the SeHCAT scan was booked second line or later (n=25), patients reported symptoms for 30 months (median, 95% CI 3 to 240) and median diagnostic package-of-care cost was £1568.31 (95% CI £1200.55 to £1713.18). However, in these 25 patients nine additional abnormalities were found: vitamin D deficiency (n=3), diverticulosis (n=2), folate deficiency (n=1), oesophageal dysmotility (n=1), renal cell carcinoma requiring nephrectomy (n=1) and Helicobacter pylori gastritis (n=1). Following diagnosis, treatment led to reported symptom improvement (n=24), no change/deterioration (n=3) and not reported (n=9).

Patients with a normal SeHCAT scan were subsequently diagnosed with functional diarrhoea or IBS-D (n=13). Twelve of them were subsequently discharged from outpatient clinics with a satisfactory control of their symptoms using dietary manipulation, loperamide or amitriptyline. One patient with refractory symptoms was referred to the regional tertiary centre. Other diagnoses made included collagenous colitis (n=2), pancreatic insufficiency (n=1) and coeliac disease (n=1). Three patients were lost to follow-up following their negative SeHCAT scan, and no definite diagnosis was made before they were discharged.

Discussion

BAM is a frequently overlooked condition in patients with ongoing episodes of loose stool.8 Our study has shown the cost saving benefits of performing tests for BAM/BAD first line with a median saving of more than £750 compared with performing it later on. Our data also suggest that patients who had a positive diagnosis made of BAM/BAD benefitted in terms of symptom improvement.

Gastroenterology departments in UK hospitals are struggling with ever increasing workload. Endoscopy waiting lists are often long. Our study suggests that significant cost savings and reduction in referral for diagnostic tests could be achieved while at the same time gaining improvement in health outcomes. This finding is supported by data from another recent study21; however, the size of the financial benefit from early diagnosis has not been estimated before.

Our finding that a positive diagnosis of BAM/BAD leads to improved symptoms in most patients is similar to that reported in at least one other study,22 although others have suggested the efficacy of treatment drops off over time possibly because some sequestrants are unpalatable.23 However, this study also suggested that sequestrants are often not given in optimal doses and dietary interventions to treat BAM/BAD which have been shown to be helpful are often not recommended.24

The prompt diagnosis and management of BAM/BAD has a number of positive outcomes for patients. First, a better understanding of BAM/BAD by medical professionals can lead to more useful consultations and greater satisfaction for patients. Second, dietary changes, especially the avoidance of high-fat foods which trigger symptoms, can have long-term health benefits beyond the improvement of gastrointestinal symptoms.25 Third, accurate diagnosis has a positive impact on the mental health of patients suffering from BAM/BAD with significant improvement seen in areas of embarrassment, low self-esteem and feeling nervous leaving home.26

The financial implications of failure to make the diagnosis is enormous. Almost half of patients diagnosed with BAM/BAD have to wait for more than 5 years to be diagnosed and many patients feel that their symptoms are repeatedly dismissed until the diagnosis is made.26 Yet, it has been estimated that a full-time general practitioner sees on average eight patients with IBS-like symptoms a week (one of whom is presenting for the first time)27 and this costs the National Health Service £22 million for these consultations28 and more than £70 million for prescribed treatments for IBS annually.29 In secondary care, outpatient attendances to gastroenterology and colorectal surgery specialties in the UK for patients with IBS account for approximately 7.5% of total outpatient attendances across all specialties, costed at £12 million for 2012–2013, although this is likely to be an underestimate.29 Despite this expenditure, at least 50% of patients will continue to have unresolved symptoms long term.30 31 The cost of undiagnosed organic pathology is not restricted to increased healthcare costs alone as the mean number of days lost to work because of IBS-like symptoms lies between 8.5 and 21.6 days per year.32

One can try to calculate the saving early diagnoses would make for our trust. Approximately 50% of patients seen in gastroenterology clinics have IBS-like symptoms. Of these, one in three have diarrhoea-predominant symptoms (IBS-D) and one in three patients of these have BAD/BAM. So, just in this population who might have primary BAD, in our trust 428 (3860×1/3×1/3) SeHCAT scans should have been requested (according to the current guidelines), and more than 140 would have been positive. Early diagnosis would therefore likely have saved more than £100 000. If you add to this number, patients with IBS who have alternating diarrhoea and constipation some of whom will have BAD/BAM and other patients with secondary BAM/BAD, the savings would be considerably more.

While our study was performed in just one trust, the numbers of scans used in our trust are not particularly different from what is happening in many other trusts and the patient population in whom the scans are requested is also similar: fewer than half the scans were in patients with IBS-D.9 33 National figures suggest that >25 000 patients with IBS-D are seen as new patients in secondary care annually,10 yet SeHCAT usage in England, approximately 11 500 SeHCAT capsules sold in 2016 (data provided by the manufacturer, personal communication), suggests that this test remains significantly underused across the country. So it seems reasonable to suggest that early use of SeHCAT could equate to savings across all 135 non-specialist acute trusts, of the order of more than £13.5 million annually in England.

One limitation of this study is that we did not calculate the costs of treatments patients were prescribed before a positive diagnosis of BAM/BAD was made. However, given the average length of time patients waited before diagnosis, it is likely that the treatments they trialled would have significantly increased the costs in those diagnosed in tests performed second line or later.

A second limitation is that we do not know how many patients were treated in our trust with empirical bile acid sequestrants rather than undergoing a formal diagnostic test. Formal testing is now the diagnostic approach recommended.8 This seems entirely reasonable as it has become clearer that empirical therapy does not always give clear-cut results,34 and this may contribute to the large group of patients with BAM/BAD who have had their diagnosis missed repeatedly, the so-called ‘revolving door’ effect where people with IBS-like symptoms have repeated referrals and investigations but do not respond to treatments offered.26

Conclusion

In our trust, SeHCAT scanning is underused. Late diagnosis of BAM/BAD is associated with markedly increased costs, unnecessary demands for other services and treatment delay for patients. It is likely that that our findings are applicable across the UK. More emphasis to ensure early diagnosis of BAM/BAD, a frequent, unpleasant and treatable condition would bring the unusual but highly desirable result of significant health benefits while substantially reducing healthcare costs.

Acknowledgments

None

Footnotes

Contributors: DCRF and DP helped develop the study concept, collected and analysed the data, wrote the first draft of the manuscript and approved the final version. LLW conceived and develop the study, identified the patients, contributed to the first draft of the manuscript and approved the final version. HJNA conceived and developed the study, contributed to all versions of the manuscript, edited the manuscript and is the study guarantor.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: HJNA has received honoraria as a speaker and consultant for GE (manufacturer of SeHCAT) and Sanofi Aventis/Genzyme (manufacturers of colesevelam)

Patient consent: Not required.

Ethics approval: This study was approved by the audit committee for our trust.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

References

  • 1. Gupta A, Muls AC, Lalji A, et al. . Outcomes from treating bile acid malabsorption using a multidisciplinary approach. Support Care Cancer 2015;23:2881–90. 10.1007/s00520-015-2653-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Brand SJ, Schmidt WE. Gastrointestinal Hornones : Yamada T, Textbook of Gastroenterology. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company, 1995:25–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Walters JR, Tasleem AM, Omer OS, et al. . A new mechanism for bile acid diarrhea: defective feedback inhibition of bile acid biosynthesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:1189–94. 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.04.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Merrick MV, Eastwood MA, Ford MJ. Is bile acid malabsorption underdiagnosed? An evaluation of accuracy of diagnosis by measurement of SeHCAT retention. Br Med J 1985;290:665–8. 10.1136/bmj.290.6469.665 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Bajor A, Kilander A, Sjövall H, et al. . The bile acid turnover rate assessed with the (75)SeHCAT test is stable in chronic diarrhoea but slightly decreased in healthy subjects after a long period of time. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:2935–40. 10.1007/s10620-008-0256-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Watson L, Lalji A, Bodla S, et al. . Management of bile acid malabsorption using low-fat dietary interventions: a useful strategy applicable to some patients with diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome? Clin Med 2015;15:536–40. 10.7861/clinmedicine.15-6-536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Jackson A, Lalji A, Kabir M, et al. . The efficacy of a low-fat diet to manage the symptoms of bile acid malabsorption - outcomes in patients previously treated for cancer. Clin Med 2017;17:412–8. 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-5-412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Arasaradnam RP, Brown S, Forbes A, et al. . Guidelines for the investigation of chronic diarrhoea in adults: British Society of Gastroenterology, 3rd edition. Gut 2018;67:1380–99. 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315909 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Khalid U, Lalji A, Stafferton R, et al. . Bile acid malabsoption: a forgotten diagnosis? Clin Med 2010;10:124–6. 10.7861/clinmedicine.10-2-124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Wedlake L, A’Hern R, Russell D, et al. . Systematic review: the prevalence of idiopathic bile acid malabsorption as diagnosed by SeHCAT scanning in patients with diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009;30:707–17. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04081.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Slattery SA, Niaz O, Aziz Q, et al. . Systematic review with meta-analysis: the prevalence of bile acid malabsorption in the irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;42:3–11. 10.1111/apt.13227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Smith MJ, Cherian P, Raju GS, et al. . Bile acid malabsorption in persistent diarrhoea. J R Coll Physicians Lond 2000;34:448–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Molloy AM, Tomkin GH. Altered bile in diabetic diarrhoea. Br Med J 1978;2:1462–3. 10.1136/bmj.2.6150.1462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Danielsson A, Nyhlin H, Persson H, et al. . Chronic diarrhoea after radiotherapy for gynaecological cancer: occurrence and aetiology. Gut 1991;32:1180–7. 10.1136/gut.32.10.1180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Pawlyn C, Khan MS, Muls A, et al. . Lenalidomide-induced diarrhea in patients with myeloma is caused by bile acid malabsorption that responds to treatment. Blood 2014;124:2467–8. 10.1182/blood-2014-06-583302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Henson CC, Davidson SE, Ang Y, et al. . Structured gastroenterological intervention and improved outcome for patients with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms following pelvic radiotherapy. Support Care Cancer 2013;21:2255–65. 10.1007/s00520-013-1782-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Muls AC, Lalji A, Marshall C, et al. . The holistic management of consequences of cancer treatment by a gastrointestinal and nutrition team: a financially viable approach to an enormous problem? Clin Med 2016;16:240–6. 10.7861/clinmedicine.16-3-240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Phillips F, Muls AC, Lalji A, et al. . Are bile acid malabsorption and bile acid diarrhoea important causes of loose stool complicating cancer therapy? Colorectal Dis 2015;17:730–4. 10.1111/codi.12932 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Jewkes AJ, Windsor CW, Ward RS, et al. . Relationship between bile acid malabsorption using the 75Se homocholic acid taurine scanning method and diarrhoea following right hemicolectomy. Br J Surg 1989;76:707–8. 10.1002/bjs.1800760719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Kurien M, Evans KE, Leeds JS, et al. . Bile acid malabsorption: an under-investigated differential diagnosis in patients presenting with diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome type symptoms. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:818–22. 10.3109/00365521.2011.574728 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Turner JM, Pattni SS, Appleby RN, et al. . A positive SeHCAT test results in fewer subsequent investigations in patients with chronic diarrhoea. Frontline Gastroenterol 2017;8:279–83. 10.1136/flgastro-2017-100826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Pattni SS, Brydon WG, Dew T, et al. . Fibroblast growth factor 19 in patients with bile acid diarrhoea: a prospective comparison of FGF19 serum assay and SeHCAT retention. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013;38:967–76. 10.1111/apt.12466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Lin S, Sanders DS, Gleeson JT, et al. . Long-term outcomes in patients diagnosed with bile-acid diarrhoea. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;28:240–5. 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Damsgaard B, Dalby HR, Krogh K, et al. . Long-term effect of medical treatment of diarrhoea in 377 patients with SeHCAT scan diagnosed bile acid malabsorption from 2003 to 2016; a retrospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2018;47:951–7. 10.1111/apt.14533 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Kurien M, Thurgar E, Davies A, et al. . Challenging current views on bile acid diarrhoea and malabsorption. Frontline Gastroenterol 2018;9:1–6. 10.1136/flgastro-2017-100808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Bannaga A, Kelman L, O’Connor M, et al. . How bad is bile acid diarrhoea: an online survey of patient-reported symptoms and outcomes. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2017;4:e000116 10.1136/bmjgast-2016-000116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Thompson WG, Heaton KW, Smyth GT, et al. . Irritable bowel syndrome in general practice: prevalence, characteristics, and referral. Gut 2000;46:78–82. 10.1136/gut.46.1.78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Rubin G. Irritable bowel syndrome. 2009.
  • 29. Soubieres A, Wilson P, Poullis A, et al. . Burden of irritable bowel syndrome in an increasingly cost-aware National Health Service. Frontline Gastroenterol 2015;6:246–51. 10.1136/flgastro-2014-100542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Lee YY, Annamalai C, Rao SSC, Ssc R. Post-Infectious Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2017;19:56 10.1007/s11894-017-0595-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. El-Serag HB, Pilgrim P, Schoenfeld P. Systemic review: Natural history of irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;19:8 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01929.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Maxion-Bergemann S, Thielecke F, Abel F, et al. . Costs of irritable bowel syndrome in the UK and US. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:21–37. 10.2165/00019053-200624010-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Summers JA, Peacock J, Coker B, et al. . Multicentre prospective survey of SeHCAT provision and practice in the UK. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2016;3:e000091 10.1136/bmjgast-2016-000091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Orekoya O, McLaughlin J, Leitao E, et al. . Quantifying bile acid malabsorption helps predict response and tailor sequestrant therapy. Clin Med 2015;15:252–7. 10.7861/clinmedicine.15-3-252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontline Gastroenterology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES