Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Abdominal pain is a cardinal feature of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS); however, differences in abdominal pain among IBS subtypes remain unknown. We aimed to characterize abdominal pain symptoms among established IBS subtypes using data from the National Gastrointestinal (GI) Survey.
METHODS:
Individuals participating in the National GI Survey completed National Institutes of Health GI Patient- Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (GI-PROMIS) questionnaires. Adults meeting modified Rome III IBS criteria and reporting abdominal pain in the previous 7 days were eligible. Outcomes included abdominal pain severity, bothersomeness, interference with daily activities, frequency, and location. Results were stratified by subtype (diarrhea [IBS-D], constipation [IBS-C], and mixed [IBS-M]). Regression models adjusted for demographics and comorbidities.
RESULTS:
One thousand one hundred fifty-eight individuals (245 IBS-D, 232 IBS-C, and 681 IBS-M) with active IBS symptoms (defined as abdominal pain in the past 7 days) were included. Demographics were similar among the subtypes except for age, race/ethnicity, education, and marital status. The GI-PROMIS score was lower for IBS-D (percentile score of 68.6, SD = 25.1; P = 0.001) and IBS-M (69.1, SD = 25.1; P< 0.001) compared with IBS-C (75.5, SD = 20.7). Abdominal pain was more bothersome (P = 0.001), caused more interference with daily activities (P = 0.03), and was more frequent (P = 0.047) for individuals with IBS-C compared with individuals with IBS-D. No differences in these domains were seen between individuals with IBS-D and IBS-M. Individuals with IBS-C and IBS-M had more widespread pain compared with those with IBS-D.
DISCUSSION:
In this population-based study, we found that abdominal pain characteristics differ between the IBS subtypes. Namely, individuals with IBS-C experience more bothersome, frequent, and diffuse abdominal pain compared with those with IBS-D.
INTRODUCTION
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) requires the presence of both abdominal pain and bowel symptoms (diarrhea and/or constipation) (1). The Rome IV diagnostic criteria and clinical trial endpoints recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classify IBS into subtypes based on the prevailing bowel symptom of diarrhea (IBS-D) or constipation (IBS-C) (2–4). Although abdominal pain is a cardinal symptom of IBS, the Rome IV diagnostic classification system does not subtype individuals with IBS on differences in how abdominal pain is experienced. Furthermore, the current FDA definition for weekly abdominal pain response is the same for both IBS-D and IBS-C: “decrease in the weekly average of worst abdominal pain in the past 24 hours score (measured daily) of at least 30% compared with baseline weekly average.”(4,5)
Abdominal pain can be the most intrusive and bothersome symptom of IBS (6) and is often accompanied by only mild diarrhea or constipation (7). Other individuals experience alternating diarrhea and constipation (mixed-type IBS, IBS-M), a subtype which may account for more than 40% of all IBS cases (8). In both scenarios, treatments primarily targeting the underlying bowel symptom (such as constipation) may unintentionally cause the opposite motility effect (such as diarrhea) (9) or may leave significant abdominal pain symptoms undertreated. Conceptually, focusing management on abdominal pain rather than bowel symptom might be sensible in these individuals with relatively mild or alternating bowel symptoms.
At present, it is unknown whether IBS-D and IBS-C subtypes merely represent differences in bowel symptoms or whether patterns of abdominal pain also vary by subtype on factors such as location or severity of pain which are elicited on a usual clinical history. Differences in intestinal permeability (10), mucosal immune activation (11–13), and the gut microbiota (14) between IBS-D and IBS-C contribute to the growing evidence underlying the importance of maintaining the distinction between IBS subtypes and support that the distinction between the subtypes likely involves much more than just the underlying bowel habit. Just as bowel symptoms are managed differently between patients with IBS-D or IBS-C, it would thus be important to understand whether abdominal pain also manifests differently by subtype because this may lead to important and specific treatment targets for IBS-D or IBS-C abdominal pain. To determine whether a more nuanced approach toward evaluating and managing abdominal pain on the basis of IBS subtype might be justified, we aimed to determine whether abdominal pain is characterized differently among established IBS subtypes using data from the National Gastrointestinal (GI) Survey.
METHODS
We conducted an analysis of abdominal pain symptoms using data from a nationwide population-based survey called the National GI Survey which was conducted to evaluate gastrointestinal symptoms among 71,812 community-dwelling individuals (adults ≥18 years of age) (15,16). Recruitment in the original study used an opt-in, incentivized list managed by a survey research firm (Cint, New York, NY) adjusted for age, sex, and location, as previously described in detail elsewhere (15,16). Respondents who were eligible met modified Rome III IBS criteria (Figure 1) and experienced abdominal pain within 7 days of the survey (consistent with standard recall length for PROMIS instruments). The modifications were specifically intended to limit our study population to actively symptomatic individuals. Moreover, this recall length minimizes effects of recall bias while ensuring enough days to support ecological validity (17,18). Eligible respondents were stratified based on IBS subtypes: diarrhea (IBS-D), constipation (IBS-C), or mixed-type (IBS-M). The National GI Survey was conducted using the MyGiHealth application (mygi.health). Demographic data included age, sex, ethnicity, education, marital status, employment status, household income, and number of comorbid medical conditions that can affect the gastrointestinal tract (including GI malignancy, Celiac disease, constipation, cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, diabetes mellitus, endometriosis, gallstones, gastroesophageal reflux, human immunodeficiency virus, pancreatitis, peptic ulcer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and other).
Figure 1.
Study eligibility criteria.
Abdominal pain symptoms were assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) GI Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (GI-PROMIS) (15,19,20). This instrument provides a percentile abdominal pain score representing a composite evaluation of severity, bothersomeness, interference with daily activities, and frequency to capture the complete abdominal pain symptom domain in actively symptomatic individuals (defined as having symptoms within the past 7 days), each using a 5-point Likert response scale. Refer to www.healthmeasures.net for the actual item bank (19). Methodology to assess content and construct validity and internal consistency reliability in an IBS population were reported in the original validation study for this instrument (20).
Our primary endpoint was the composite GI-PROMIS percentile score (0–100) for abdominal pain for each IBS subtype. Secondary endpoints included abdominal pain severity (At its worst, how would you rate your belly pain?), bothersomeness (How much did belly pain bother you?), interference with daily activities (How much did belly pain interfere with your day-to-day activities?), frequency (How often did you have belly pain?), and location, each analyzed by IBS subtype. Abdominal pain location was divided into 9 regions (right upper quadrant, epigastric, left upper quadrant, right midabdomen, periumbilical, left midabdomen, right lower quadrant, suprapubic, and left lower quadrant).
Demographic differences among IBS subtype were evaluated using a χ2 test for nominal variables. Descriptive statistics using mean with SD and proportions were used to report scores for GI-PROMIS, abdominal pain severity, bothersomeness, impact on day-to-day activities, frequency, and location. Multivariable regression models were performed on our outcomes to adjust for potentially confounding demographic variables. All analyses were performed using Stata 13.1 software (StataCorp, College Station, TX). This study was approved by the Cedars-Sinai Institutional Review Board (Pro41586), and all respondents agreed to the use of their deidentified data for research purposes.
RESULTS
Of 71,812 individuals completing the nationwide survey, 1,158 eligible respondents reported abdominal pain symptoms within the previous 7 days of the survey and met modified Rome III criteria for IBS. Of these, 245 (21.2%) had IBS-D, 232 (20.0%) had IBS-C, and 681 (58.8%) had IBS-M. Sex, employment status, annual income, and number of medical comorbidities were similar among IBS subtypes; however, there were differences regarding distributions of age, race/ethnicity, education, and marital status (Table 1). The prevalence of specific individual comorbidities affecting the GI tract was similar among subtypes, except for Crohn’s disease and gallstones which were more frequent in patients with IBS-D and for self-reported chronic constipation which was less frequent in IBS-D (see Table 1, Supplementary Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B353).
Table 1.
Demographics of survey participants stratified by IBS subtype (N = 1,158)
| IBS with diarrhea (n [%]) | IBS with constipation (n [%]) | Mixed-type IBS (n [%]) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.008 | |||
| 18–24 years | 28(11.4) | 20 (8.6) | 93 (13.7) | |
| 25–44 years | 123 (50.2) | 114(49.1) | 386 (56.7) | |
| 45–64 years | 92 (37.6) | 94 (40.5) | 192 (28.2) | |
| 65+ years | 2 (0.8) | 4(1.7) | 10(1.5) | |
| Sex | 0.07 | |||
| Female | 176 (71.8) | 179 (77.2) | 539 (79.2) | |
| Male | 69 (28.2) | 53 (22.8) | 142 (20.9) | |
| Race/ethnicity | 0.02 | |||
| Non-Hispanic white | 217 (88.6) | 181 (78.0) | 586(86.1) | |
| Non-Hispanic black | 4(1.6) | 14 (6.0) | 21 (3.1) | |
| Hispanic | 20 (8.2) | 23 (9.9) | 46 (6.8) | |
| Asian | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.9) | 7(1.0) | |
| Other | 3(1.2) | 12(5.2) | 21 (3.1) | |
| Education | 0.009 | |||
| Less than high school | 7(2.9) | 13(5.6) | 16 (2.4) | |
| High school | 54 (22.0) | 48 (20.7) | 134 (19.7) | |
| Some college | 103 (42.0) | 96(41.4) | 231 (33.9) | |
| College graduate | 65 (26.5) | 61 (26.3) | 240 (35.2) | |
| Graduate degree | 16(6.5) | 14 (6.0) | 60 (8.8) | |
| Maritalstatus | 0.001 | |||
| Never married | 37(15.1) | 33 (14.2) | 134 (19.7) | |
| Divorced/separated/widowed | 39 (15.9) | 55 (23.7) | 86(12.6) | |
| Married/long-term relationship | 169 (69.0) | 144(62.1) | 461 (67.7) | |
| Employment status | 0.13 | |||
| Not employed | 98 (40.0) | 112(48.3) | 282(41.4) | |
| Employed or full-time | 147 (60.0) | 120 (51.7) | 399 (58.6) | |
| Annualincome | 0.07 | |||
| $0–$50,000 | 143 (58.4) | 133 (57.3) | 342 (50.2) | |
| $50,001–$100,000 | 75 (30.6) | 74(31.9) | 231 (33.9) | |
| $100,001–$200,000 | 16(6.5) | 14 (6.0) | 72(10.6) | |
| $200,001 or more | 4(1.6) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (0.9) | |
| Prefer not to say | 7(2.9) | 11(4.7) | 30 (4.4) | |
| No. of medicalcomorbidities | 0.23 | |||
| 0 | 69 (28.2) | 85 (36.6) | 244 (35.8) | |
| 1 | 89 (36.3) | 81 (34.9) | 226 (33.2) | |
| 2 | 51 (20.8) | 38(16.4) | 107(15.7) | |
| 3 or more | 36 (14.7) | 28(12.1) | 104 (15.3) |
IBS, irritable bowel syndrome.
Composite GI-PROMIS scores
Regardless of IBS subtype, respondents with IBS had abdominal pain GI-PROMIS scores higher than the median (i.e., 50th percentile) among all symptomatic individuals in the community. The GI-PROMIS score, as a composite measure of abdominal pain severity, bothersomeness, interference with daily activities, and frequency, was higher for IBS-C (75.5, SD = 20.7) compared with IBS-D (percentile score of 68.6, SD = 25.1; P = 0.001) or IBS-M (69.1, SD = 25.1; P < 0.001). GI-PROMIS scores were not significantly different between IBS-D and IBS-M subtypes (P = 0.70).
Comparison of abdominal pain severity, bothersomeness, interference with daily activities, and frequency among IBS subtypes
There were no significant differences in abdominal pain “severity at its worst” based on responses from a 5-point Likert scale among IBS subtypes (Table 2). However, when compared with those with IBS-D, respondents with IBS-C noted more bothersomeness (P = 0.001), interference with daily activities (P = 0.03), and frequency (P = 0.047) of abdominal pain symptoms. Those with IBS-C were also more likely to note that their pain was more bothersome (P = 0.009) and frequent (P < 0.001) and had a larger impact on day-to-day tasks (P = 0.04) vs those with IBS-M. No differences in these domains were seen between individuals with IBS-D and IBS-M.
Table 2.
Bothersomeness, interference with daily activities, frequency, and distribution of abdominal pain vary among common IBS subtypesa
| IBS with diarrhea (n = 245) | IBS with constipation (n = 232) | Mixed-type IBS (n = 681) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abdominal pain severity rating at its worst, 5-point Likert scale (0 = not bad at all; 4 = very bad) | 2.3 ± 1.0 (reference) | 2.5 ± 0.9 (P = 0.001 vs IBS-D) | 2.5 ± 1.0 (P = 0.22 vs IBS-D) (P = 0.009 vs IBS-C) |
| Abdominal pain bothersomeness, 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all; 4 = very much) | 2.4 ± 1.0 (reference) | 2.7 ± 0.9 (P = 0.001 vs IBS-D) | 2.5 ± 1.0 (P = 0.22 vs IBS-D) (P = 0.009 vs IBS-C) |
| Abdominal pain interference with daily activities, 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all; 4 = very much) | 2.0 ± 1.1 (reference) | 2.3 ± 1.0 (P = 0.03 vs. IBS-D) | 2.0 ± 1.1 (P = 0.57 vs IBS-D) (P = 0.04 vs IBS-C) |
| Abdominal pain frequency, 5-point Likert scale (0 = never; 4 = always)b | 2.6 ± 0.8 (reference) | 2.8 ± 0.8 (P = 0.047 vs IBS-D) | 2.5 ± 0.8 (P = 0.10 vs IBS-D) (P = <0.001 vs IBS-C) |
| No. of painful anatomic abdominalregions (0–9) | 3.0 ± 1.9 (reference) | 3.4 ± 2.0 (P = 0.03 vs IBS-D) | 3.5 ± 2.0 (P = 0.002 vs IBS-D) (P = 0.65 vs IBS-C) |
| Individuals with diffuse abdominalpainb | 100 (40.8%) (reference) | 121 (52.2%) (P = 0.004 vs IBS-D) | 371 (54.5%) (P = 0.001 vs IBS-D) (P = 0.90 vs IBS-C) |
| Individuals with only upper-mid abdominal pain (regions 1–6) | 43 (17.6%) (reference) | 32 (13.8%) (P = 0.28 vs IBS-D) | 100 (14.7%) (P = 0.44 vs IBS-D) (P = 0.58 vs IBS-C) |
Bold entries represent statistically significant findings (P < 0.05).
Individuals with IBS-C reported more bothersome, frequent, and diffuse abdominal pain, and more interference with daily activities, than those with IBS-D than those with IBS-D, but there was no difference in severity. Individuals with IBS-M reported more diffuse pain than those with IBS-D, but otherwise, there were no differences in severity, bothersomeness, interference with daily activities, or frequency of abdominal pain between IBS-M and IBS-D.
Data are presented as mean ± SD or n (%).
IBS, irritable bowel syndrome.
All multivariable regression models adjusted for IBS subtype, age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, employment status, household income, and number of comorbid conditions.
Diffuse abdominal pain is defined as pain that crossed ≥ 1 horizontal or vertical planes.
Localization and anatomic distribution of abdominal pain stratified by IBS subtype
Table 3 and Figure 2 present the localization of painful abdominal regions by IBS subtype. The most common individual areas in all subtypes were the suprapubic, periumbilical, right lower, and left lower regions The mean number of abdominal pain regions, of 9 total, was 3.0 for IBS-D (SD = 1.9), 3.4 for IBS-C (SD = 2.0), and 3.5 (SD = 2.0) for IBS-M (Table 2). Adjusting for demographic variables, IBS-C was associated with a greater number of abdominal regions affected by pain than IBS-D (P = 0.03) but not IBS-M (P = 0.65). IBS-D was associated with a greater number of abdominal regions affected by pain than IBS-M (P = 0.002). More individuals with IBS-C (52.2% of individuals with IBS-C) also reported diffuse abdominal pain or pain affecting the entire abdomen compared with those with IBS-D (40.8%, P = 0.004) but not IBS-M (54.5%). Individuals with IBS-M were significantly more likely to report diffuse abdominal pain than those with IBS-D (P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in prevalence of diffuse abdominal pain between IBS-C and IBS-M subtypes (P = 0.90). We also found no differences in the proportion of individuals with only upper-mid abdominal pain (regions 1–6) among the various subtypes.
Table 3.
Localization of painful abdominal regions by IBS subtype
| IBS with diarrhea n = 245, n (%) | IBS with constipation n = 232, n (%) | Mixed-type IBS n = 681, n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diffuse,a but not entire abdomen | 94 (38.4) | 109 (47.0) | 337 (49.5) |
| Entire abdomen (regions 1–9) | 6(2.5) | 12 (5.2) | 34 (5.0) |
| Right upper quadrant (region 1) | 1 (0.4) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (0.3) |
| Epigastrium (region 2) | 7(2.9) | 2 (0.9) | 9(1.3) |
| Left upper quadrant (region 3) | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.2) |
| Right midabdomen (region 4) | 3(1.2) | 2 (0.9) | 2 (0.3) |
| Periumbilical(region 5) | 13 (5.3) | 5 (2.2) | 14 (2.1) |
| Left midabdomen (region 6) | 0(0.0) | 1 (0.4) | 5(0.7) |
| Right lower quadrant (region 7) | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.9) | 6(0.9) |
| Suprapubic (region 8) | 30 (12.2) | 16 (6.9) | 62 (9.1) |
| Left lower quadrant (region 9) | 1 (0.4) | 3(1.3) | 4(0.6) |
| Upper abdomen (regions 1–3) | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.9) | 4(0.6) |
| Midabdomen (regions 4–6) | 4(1.6) | 6 (2.6) | 12(1.8) |
| Lower abdomen (regions 7–9) | 38(13.9) | 23 (9.9) | 59 (8.7) |
| Right abdomen (regions 1, 4, 7) | 3(1.2) | 0 (0.0) | 8(1.2) |
| Midline abdomen (regions 2, 5, 8) | 39(15.1) | 41 (17.7) | 115(16.9) |
| Left abdomen (regions 3, 6, 9) | 3(1.2) | 6 (2.6) | 7(1.0) |
IBS, irritable bowel syndrome.
Diffuse abdominal pain is defined as pain that crossed ≥ 1 horizontal or vertical planes.
Figure 2.
Anatomical distribution of abdominal pain for each IBS subtype presented using heat maps. Results are presented for diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D) (a), constipation-predominant IBS (IBS-C) (b), and mixed-type IBS (IBS-M) (c). The assigned color for each abdominal region ranges from yellow (least involved) to red (most involved) based on the prevalence of abdominal pain within each abdominal pain region. IBS, irritable bowel syndrome.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we identified differences in severity and characteristics of abdominal pain among IBS subtypes in a nationwide representative sample of individuals in the United States. Individuals with IBS-C had a higher composite GI-PROMIS score vs those with IBS-D and IBS-M. When looking at the individual components of GI-PROMIS, we found that those with IBS-C reported more bothersome and frequent abdominal pain as well as more interference with daily activities than individuals with either IBS-D or IBS-M. The IBS-C subtype was also associated with more diffuse abdominal pain compared with the IBS-D subtype. We also noted that although abdominal pain severity is similar between IBS-D and IBS-M subtypes, those with IBS-M are more likely to have diffuse abdominal pain.
IBS is a symptom-based diagnosis requiring 2 types of symptoms: abdominal symptoms (pain) and bowel symptoms (constipation/diarrhea). As our findings suggest that abdominal pain in IBS-D and IBS-C manifests differently, there is now evidence that both abdominal and bowel symptoms differ between IBS subtypes. Given that IBS is diagnosed based on symptoms alone, both of the cardinal symptoms of IBS manifest very differently between IBS-D and IBS-C. Physiologic mechanisms appear to differ between subtypes (10–14), lending credence credence to the notion that IBS-D and IBS-C might represent distinct entities as opposed to being true subtypes of the same disease. What IBS-D and IBS-C do have in common is that both subtypes are associated with the presence of visceral hypersensitivity, supported most recently by Melchior et al. who found that individuals meeting Rome III criteria for IBS-D or IBS-C had increased rectal hypersensitivity using a standard barostat technique compared with healthy controls (21). The severity of pain in IBS arising from visceral hypersensitivity maybe modulated by serotonin signaling pathways (22). Although abdominal pain amplified by visceral hypersensitivity is shared across IBS subtypes, differences in how abdominal pain manifests in the first place may be explained by differences in both the etiology of the underlying condition and neural processing pathways involved in regulating abdominal pain. Multiple studies identified differences in brain activation changes on functional MRI associated with painful stimuli between IBS-D and IBS-C, suggesting that neural processing pathways for visceral pain differ (23–25). Future efforts to improve clinical trial design may benefit from recognizing differences in abdominal pain between IBS-D and IBS-C supported by differences in etiology and central pain processing, rather than simply differences in the prevailing bowel habit. Recent drug approvals may provide ample opportunity to learn how abdominal pain management based on the IBS subtype might be optimized, through a variety of neurobiological mechanisms including abnormal brain-gut interactions (26,27), small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (28), guanylate cyclase C agonism (29), and opioid receptor modulation (30).
Rome IV defines IBS-M by requiring that stool consistency be Bristol Stool type 1 or 2 during greater than 25% of bowel movements, as well as Bristol Stool type 6 or 7 in at least another 25% of bowel movements (3). Unfortunately, in clinical trials, there is no regulatory mechanism to evaluate prescription drugs for what may be an unstable clinical phenotype (31). It is possible that abdominal symptoms may provide a more stable therapeutic target for individuals with IBS-M, compared with the moving target of bowel complaints. Our findings suggest similarities in the presentation of abdominal pain between IBS-D and IBS-M, specifically that both conditions are associated with pain that is less bothersome, not as frequent, and causes less interference with daily activities compared with IBS-C. These findings contrast with those of Palsson et al. (32), which followed patterns of IBS symptoms among individuals with IBS-M, IBS-D, or IBS-C for an average of 73 days. In that study, individuals with IBS-M reported more days with abdominal pain (47.7% of days) compared with those with IBS-D (35.2%). The difference in findings may be related more to study design because our study focused on evaluating the severity and location of pain precisely when individuals were actively symptomatic and stratified subtypes during enrollment. Despite similarities between IBS-D and IBS-M symptoms, there is evidence that IBS-C and IBS-M might share similar stool microbiota signatures (33). At the same time, history of acute gastroenteritis, methanogen production, are similarly lower between IBS-D and IBS-M compared with IBS-C (34). Whether individuals with IBS-M on therapy respond more similarly to IBS-C (35) or IBS-D (36) remains unknown. Although the underlying etiology and rationale for managing IBS-M remains undecided, our findings are important in at least characterizing the most stable defining symptom (i.e., abdominal pain) of this rather unstable phenotype of IBS.
Several previous studies have evaluated differences in abdominal pain between IBS-D and IBS-C. In a survey of consecutive IBS individuals, Talley et al. found that individuals with IBS-C reported lower abdominal pain more frequently than those with IBS-D (40.8% vs 24.4%, P = 0.05). This study did not use the Rome criteria nor were abdominal pain regions visually defined (37). In a prospective cohort of individuals with Rome III IBS followed for a mean of 73 days, Palsson et al. identified more days with abdominal pain in IBS-C compared with IBS-D. Unlike our study which was primarily focused on characterizing abdominal pain in IBS, the focus of the Palsson study was on confirming the episodic nature of symptom patterns in IBS, and further pain characteristics were not reported (32). Melchior et al. (21) recently reported that individuals with IBS with increased visceral hypersensitivity derived by barostat were more likely to have lower as opposed to diffuse abdominal pain; however, distributions and severity of pain were not reported for IBS subtypes. One previous study similarly evaluated localization of abdominal pain; however, symptom data in this study were based on patient recall, enrollment was based on a referral population with nondiagnostic endoscopic examination, and Rome criteria were not uniformly applied (38).
We found that IBS-M was the most prevalent subtype among individual with active symptoms, which contrasts with a previous systematic review by Ford et al. in which IBS-M was least common subtype among studies which categorized 3 subtypes of IBS (IBS-D, IBS-C, and IBS-M) (8). However, Ford et al. included all individuals with IBS, rather than limiting to solely actively symptomatic individuals. Although not the intent of our study, our findings could imply the possibility that IBS-M is more likely to be actively symptomatic than IBS-D or IBS-C. This may be supported by the lack of FDA-approved therapies for IBS-M, as opposed to IBS-D and IBS-C, and that several IBS treatments cause the bowel side effects opposite the predominant bowel complaint (i.e. too much constipation in a patient treated for IBS-D and vice versa). At the same time, the overall prevalence of IBS was unmeasured in our study, so further studies should measure both the overall prevalence of IBS and the prevalence of actively symptomatic (and inactive) IBS to clarify the clinical significance of these findings.
Our findings are potentially limited by the use of modified Rome III criteria to determine study eligibility rather than strict Rome III definitions. These modifications were intended to restrict analysis to individuals with active abdominal pain symptoms, as opposed to IBS without active pain symptoms or the total IBS population. Although these modifications likely explain the low apparent prevalence of actively symptomatic IBS (1.6%) in our study (39), (i) our methodology limited the influence of recall bias and (ii) our study was not intended to assess IBS prevalence (40). We also did not assess ongoing medications and supplements which can impact the severity of IBS. It is possible that our findings could be due to higher rates of medication use for pain episodes among individuals with IBS-D compared with individuals with IBS-C or IBS-M, resulting in less bothersome pain in IBS-D. However, this effect may be limited by the broader underuse of medications to treat IBS pain episodes (with medication use in fewer than 30% of pain episodes in 1 study) regardless of IBS subtype (41). It is also possible that our findings might relate to possible variation among subtypes in the frequency of comorbid mood disorders, as well as coping skills including pain catastrophizing behaviors, somatization, and anxiety sensitivity which were not assessed in our study (42,43). Prospective studies to understand why abdominal pain varies by subtype are needed to understand whether these findings are explained by variation in the direct mechanisms of IBS or whether these findings are due to variation in coping skills or comorbidities which impact how abdominal pain is experienced. Regardless of reason, however, abdominal pain experiences do seem to vary by subtype in our nationwide, representative sample.
Study strengths include our use of the GI-PROMIS instrument which is validated for use in evaluating the abdominal pain symptom domain for individuals with IBS. Furthermore, the study evaluated abdominal pain symptoms experienced only within the previous 7 days, consistent with PROMIS methodology to limit recall bias (44). Although the prevalence of IBS in this nationwide cohort was lower than that reported in the literature (8), this derives specifically from our study design and use of the GI-PROMIS instrument requiring individuals to be actively or recently symptomatic to limit recall bias associated with survey data. Furthermore, our study was conducted from a nationwide cohort using recruitment quotas for age, sex, and location.
In summary, this study reports the results of a nationwide population-based survey to characterize abdominal pain symptoms among individuals with IBS based on the contemporary motility-based subtype framework. Abdominal pain appears more severe in IBS than in the general population. Our findings also show that abdominal pain is more severe and generalized within the IBS-C subtype, compared with IBS-D or IBS-M subtypes. Our findings support the Rome IV framework of subtyping IBS based on the predominant bowel habit, but add that more effort is needed to understand and address abdominal symptoms specific to each subtype.
Supplementary Material
Study Highlights.
WHAT IS KNOWN
Abdominal pain is a cardinal feature of IBS.
Differences in abdominal pain among IBS subtypes based on bowel pattern remain unknown.
WHAT IS NEW HERE
The typical pattern of abdominal pain varies significantly by IBS subtype.
Individuals with constipation-predominant IBS experience more bothersome, frequent, and widespread abdominal pain than those with diarrhea-predominant IBS.
Acknowledgments
Financial support: This study was funded by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. The study sponsor did not have a role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data. E.D.S. is supported by the American Gastroenterological Association-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders. The Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE) is supported by The Marc and Sheri Rapaport Fund for Digital Health Sciences & Precision Health. C.V.A. is supported by a career development award from the American College of Gastroenterology. C.V.A. and B.M.S. are supported by a NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) UCLA CTSI Grant Number UL1TR001881.
Footnotes
CONFLICTS OF INTREST
Potential competing interests: B.M.S. and W.D.C. are consultants for Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Allergan. B.M.S. and W.D.C. are patent holders and previously were principals at My Total Health. C.V.A. has a stock option grant in My Total Health. E.D.S. has no relevant disclosures.
Guarantor of the article: William D. Chey, MD, AGAF, FACG, FACP, RFF accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the study and had full access to the data and control of the decision to publish.
REFERENCES
- 1.Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Chey WD, et al. The American College of Gastroenterology monograph on management of irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:1–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Corsetti M, Tack J. FDA and EMA end points: Which outcome end points should we use in clinical trials in patients with irritable bowel syndrome? Neurogastroenterol Motil 2013;25:453–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mearin F, Lacy BE, Chang L, et al. Bowel disorders. Gastroenterol 2016; 150:1393–407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the evaluation of medicinal products for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. 2014. (http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/09/WC500173457.pdf). Accessed January 25, 2019.
- 5.Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Irritable Bowel Syndrome—Clinical Evaluation of Drugs for Treatment. 2012. (https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM205269.pdf). Accessed January 25, 2019.
- 6.Cain KC, Headstrom P, Jarrett ME, et al. Abdominal pain impacts quality oflife in women with irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:124–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Shah ED, Almario CV, Spiegel BMR, et al. Lower and upper gastrointestinal symptoms differ between individuals with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation or chronic idiopathic constipation. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2018;24:299–306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lovell RM, Ford AC. Global prevalence of and risk factors for irritable bowel syndrome: A meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:712–21.e4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Shah E, Pimentel M. Evaluating the functional net value of pharmacologic agents in treating irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014;39:973–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ludidi S, Jonkers D, Elamin E, et al. The intestinal barrier in irritable bowel syndrome: Subtype-specific effects of the systemic compartment in an in vitro model. PLoS One 2015;10:e0123498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hughes PA, Harrington AM, Castro J, et al. Sensory neuro-immune interactions differ between Irritable Bowel Syndrome subtypes. Gut 2013; 62:1456–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Boyer J, Saint-Paul MC, Dadone B, et al. Inflammatory cell distribution in colon mucosa as a new tool for diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome: A promising pilot study. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2018;30:e13223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bashashati M, Moossavi S, Cremon C, et al. Colonic immune cells in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2018;30:e13192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Attaluri A, Jackson M, Valestin J, et al. Methanogenic flora is associated with altered colonic transit but not stool characteristics in constipation without IBS. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:1407–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Almario CV, Ballal ML, Chey WD, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal symptoms in the United States: Results of a nationally representative survey of over 71,000 Americans. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:1701–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Menees SB, Almario CV, Spiegel BMR, et al. Prevalence of and factors associated with fecal incontinence: Results from a population-based survey. Gastroenterology 2018;154:1672–81.e3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Mujagic Z, Keszthelyi D, Aziz Q, et al. Systematic review: Instruments to assess abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;42:1064–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Reise SP, Revicki DA (eds). Handbook of Item Response Theory Modeling: Applications to Typical Performance Assessment. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015, pp 340. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Belly Pain. PROMIS Scale v1.0. HealthMeasures. (http://www.healthmeasures.net/administrator/components/com_instruments/uploads/PR0MIS%20Scale%20v1.0%20-%20GI%20Belly%20Pain%205a%2009-01-2016.pdf). Accessed January25, 2019.
- 20.Spiegel BMR, Hays Rd, Bolus R, et al. Development of the NIH patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) gastrointestinal symptom scales. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:1804–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Melchior C, Bril L, Leroi AM, et al. Are characteristics of abdominal pain helpful to identify patients with visceral hypersensitivity in irritable bowel syndrome? Results of a prospective study. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2018; 30:e13290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Shekhar C, Monaghan PJ, Morris J, et al. Rome III functional constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation are similar disorders within a spectrum of sensitization, regulated by serotonin. Gastroenterology 2013;145:749–57; quiz e13–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wilder-Smith CH.Brain functional magnetic resonance imaging of rectal pain and activation of endogenous inhibitory mechanisms in irritable bowel syndrome patient subgroups and healthy controls. Gut 2004;53: 1595–601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Guleria A, Karyampudi A, Singh R, et al. Mapping of brain activations to rectal balloon distension stimuli in male patients with irritable bowel syndrome using functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2017;23:415–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Verne GN, Himes NC, Robinson ME, et al. Central representation of visceral and cutaneous hypersensitivity in the irritable bowel syndrome. Pain 2003;103:99–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lackner JM, Jaccard J, Radziwon CD, et al. Durability and decay of treatment benefit of cognitive behavioral therapy for irritable bowel syndrome: 12-month follow-up. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:330–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Drossman DA, Tack J, Ford AC, et al. Neuromodulators for functional gastrointestinal disorders (disorders of Gut—Brain interaction): A Rome foundation working team report. Gastroenterology 2018;154:1140–71.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Pimentel M Review article: Potential mechanisms of action of rifaximin in the management of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2016;43:37–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Castro J, Harrington AM, Hughes PA, et al. Linaclotide inhibits colonic nociceptors and relieves abdominal pain via guanylate cyclase-C and extracellular cyclic guanosine 3’,5’-monophosphate. Gastroenterology 2013;145:1334–46.e1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Holzer P Opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract. Regul Pept 2009; 155:11–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Engsbro AL, Simren M, Bytzer P. Short-term stability of subtypes in the irritable bowel syndrome: Prospective evaluation using the Rome III classification: IBS subtype stability. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;35: 350–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Palsson OS, Baggish J, Whitehead WE. Episodic nature of symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:1450–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Malinen E, Rinttila T, Kajander K, et al. Analysis of the fecal microbiota of irritable bowel syndrome patients and healthy controls with real-time PCR. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:373–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Rezaie A, Park SC, Morales W, et al. Assessment of anti-vinculin and anti-cytolethal distending toxin B antibodies in subtypes of irritable bowel syndrome. Dig Dis Sci 2017;62:1480–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Tuck CJ, Taylor KM, Gibson PR, et al. Increasing symptoms in irritable bowel symptoms with ingestion of Galacto-oligosaccharides are mitigated by α-Galactosidase treatment. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:124–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Pimentel M, Lembo A, Chey WD, et al. Rifaximin therapy for patients with irritable bowel syndrome without constipation. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:22–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Talley NJ, Dennis EH, Schettler-Duncan VA, et al. Overlapping upper and lower gastrointestinal symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome patients with constipation or diarrhea. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:2454–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Bouchoucha M, Fysekidis M, Devroede G, et al. Abdominal pain localization is associated with non-diarrheic Rome III functional gastrointestinal disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2013;25: 686–e511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Sperber AD, Dumitrascu D, Fukudo S, et al. The global prevalence of IBS in adults remains elusive due to the heterogeneity of studies: A Rome foundation working team literature review. Gut 2017;66: 1075–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Lackner JM, Jaccard J, Keefer L, et al. The accuracy of patient-reported measures for GI symptoms: A comparison of real time and retrospective reports. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014;26:1802–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Hellstrom PM, Saito YA, Bytzer P, et al. Characteristics of acute pain attacks in patients with irritable bowel syndrome meeting Rome III criteria. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1299–307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Lackner J, Jaccard J, Baum C, et al. Patient-reported outcomes for irritable bowel syndrome are associated with patients’ severity ratings of gastrointestinal symptoms and psychological factors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:957–64.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Bouhassira D, Moisset X, Jouet P, et al. Changes in the modulation of spinal pain processing are related to severity in irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2013;25:623–e468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43:87–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.