Post on 31-Mar-2018
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Nutrition and Prevention of Diseases Topic 20
Module 20.5
Nutritional in Prevention and Management of
Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Constipation and
Diverticulosis
Eduard Cabré
Learning objectives
• To get a global understanding of the pathophysiology of irritable bowel syndrome,
idiopathic chronic constipation, and diverticular disease for a more rational use of dietary
tools in these conditions;
• To learn about the true impact of “food intolerance” on symptoms of irritable bowel,
thereby gaining insight into the role of excluding selected food from the diet of these
patients;
• To know the indications and limits for the use of high-fibre diets and fibre supplements in
irritable bowel syndrome, chronic constipation, and diverticular disease;
• To summarise the current evidences for the use of probiotics and prebiotics in these
conditions.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Irritable bowel syndrome
2.1 Definition
2.2 Epidemiology and healthcare burden
2.3 Pathophysiology
3. Dietary and nutritional issues in IBS
3.1 Adverse reactions to food in IBS
3.1.1 Food avoidance
3.1.2 Food allergy
3.1.3 Carbohydrate malabsorption
3.1.4 Gluten sensitivity
3.2 Nutritional consequences of IBS
3.3 Dietary management of IBS
3.3.1 ‘Primum non nocere’
3.3.2 Exclusion diets
3.3.3 Dietary fibre and bulking agents
3.3.4 Probiotics and prebiotics
3.3.4.1 Probiotics
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
3.3.4.2 Prebiotics
4. Chronic constipation
4.1 Definition
4.2 Pathophysiology
5. Dietary prevention and management of chronic constipation
5.1 Fibre-enriched diet
5.2 Fibre supplements (bulking agents)
5.3 Probiotics and prebiotics
6. Diverticular disease
6.1 Epidemiology and clinical spectrum
6.2 Pathophysiology
7. Dietary management of uncomplicated diverticular disease
7.1 Fibre supplementation
7.2 Probiotics and prebiotics
8. Summary
Key messages
• Although self-reported food intolerances are frequent in patients with irritable bowel
syndrome, their role on the genesis of symptoms is difficult to demonstrate;
• Thus, in general, patients with IBS could eat a balanced diet without restrictions, and
should be encouraged to do that;
• Sugar malabsorption (i.e. lactose, fructose, sorbitol) is an exception to this rule, and
exclusion of foods containing them (in patients with proven malabsorption and
intolerance) is useful;
• Food allergy account for only a minority of food intolerances in irritable bowel syndrome;
• Increasing fibre intake is useful for preventing and treating functional chronic constipation,
as well as for alleviating symptoms of irritable bowel and diverticular disease (although
evidence is less strong for these indications);
• In contrast, fibre may worsen symptoms in patients with constipation due to colonic inertia
and/or pelvic floor dyssynergia;
• There is growing evidence for the effectiveness of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome,
chronic constipation, and diverticular disease (depending on the strain used). Data on the
usefulness of prebiotics in these situations are still very scarce.
1. Introduction
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chronic constipation, and diverticular disease of the colon are
clinical conditions with a common pathophysiological basis of disturbed bowel motility.
Furthermore, a pathogenic factor of dietary fibre deficiency has been claimed to occur in most
patients with these gastrointestinal complaints. These is the reason to include them together
in a single educational module.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Although this module is focused on nutritional and dietary prevention and management of
these conditions, a brief epidemiological, clinical, and pathophysiological overview will precede
each section.
2. Irritable Bowel Syndrome
IBS – also referred to as irritable or spastic colon – is one of the commonest seen disorders at
Gastroenterology clinics (20%-50% of referrals) affecting patients physically, psychologically,
socially, and economically. IBS is a combination of chronic or recurrent gastrointestinal
symptoms not explained by structural or biochemical abnormalities. Although IBS is a disorder
of the whole bowel, colonic symptoms usually predominate.
2.1 Definition
The absence of pathognomonic features makes IBS a diagnosis of exclusion. Keeping this is
mind, and to reduce the need for expensive and unnecessary investigations, attempts have
been made for a positive diagnosis of IBS.
Individual symptoms such as abdominal pain, loose or frequent stools associated with pain,
incomplete evacuation, mucus per rectum, abdominal distension or proctalgia fugax all have
limited accuracy in diagnosing IBS. Lower abdominal pain have the highest sensitivity (90%)
but very poor specificity (32%), whereas patient-reported visible abdominal distension have
the highest specificity (77%) but low sensitivity (39%). Therefore, a variety of criteria have
been developed to identify a combination of symptoms to diagnose IBS (Table 1 ).
Table 1 Diagnostic criteria used to define Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
Criteria
Symptoms, signs, and laboratory investigations
included in criteria
Manning’s (1) IBS is defined as the symptoms given below with no
duration of symptoms described. The number of
symptoms that need to be present for diagnosis is not
reported,, but a threshold of 3 positive is the most
commonly used:
1. Abdominal pain relieved by defecation
2. More frequent stools with onset of pain
3. Looser stools with onset of pain
4. Mucus per rectum
5. Feeling of incomplete emptying
6. Patient-reported visible abdominal distension
Kruis’ (2) IBS is defined by a logistic regression model that
describes the probability of IBS. Symptoms need to
be present for more than two years.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Symptoms:
1. Abdominal pain, flatulence, or bowel irregularity
2. Description of type and severity of abdominal
pain
3. Alternating constipation and diarrhoea
Signs that exclude IBS (each determined by the physician):
1. Physical findings and/or history pathognomonic
for any diagnosis other than IBS
2. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate >20 mm/2 h
3. Leukocytosis >10,000/cc
4. Anaemia (Haemoglobin <12 g/L for women or
<14 g/L for men)
5. Impression by the physician that the patient has
rectal bleeding
Rome I (3) Abdominal pain or discomfort relieved with
defecation, or associated with a change in stool
frequency or consistency, PLUS two or more of the
following on at least 25% of occasions or days for
three months:
1. Altered stool frequency
2. Altered stool form
3. Altered stool passage
4. Passage of mucus
5. Bloating or distension
Rome II (4) Abdominal discomfort or pain that has two of three
features for 12 weeks (need not be consecutive) in
the last one year:
1. Relieved with defecation
2. Onset associated with change in stool frequency
3. Onset associated with change in stool form
Rome III (5) Recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort three days
per month in the last three months associated with
two or more of:
1. Improvement with defecation
2. Onset associated with change in stool frequency
3. Onset associated with change in stool form
The first description of this approach was made by Manning et al (1) (Table 1). Studies
evaluating the accuracy of Manning’s criteria are controversial, but overall, they have a pooled
sensitivity of 78% and pooled specificity of 72%.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
The next description of symptom criteria was by Kruis et al (2) (Table 1) and studies on their
accuracy suggested that the Kruis’ symptoms score have an excellent positive predictive value
with a pooled sensitivity of 77% and pooled specificity of 89%.
Subsequently, an international working group developed the Rome criteria, which have
undergone three iterations over 15 years (Table 1) (3-5). These criteria have been heavily
promoted, although there has been only one study in which the accuracy of Rome I criteria
has been evaluated (with a sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 85%) and none describing the
accuracy of Rome II or III.
All studies evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic criteria in patients with IBS face the problem
of lack of a reference standard test for this condition. Notwithstanding, none of the symptom-
based diagnostic criteria have an ideal accuracy and the Rome criteria, in particular, have been
inadequately evaluated, despite their extensive use in the research setting as mentioned.
For these reasons, the American College of Gastroenterology Task Force has recently promoted
a simple, pragmatic, and clinically useful definition incorporating the key features of previous
diagnostic criteria. They have defined IBS as “abdominal pain or discomfort that occurs in
association with altered bowel habits over a period of at least three months” (6).
In addition of the above described symptom-based assessment, a limited screening for organic
disease seems mandatory. This include complete physical examination, haematology counts
and routine biochemistry analysis (including erythrocyte sedimentation rate and, probably,
serum thyroid hormones), a search for ova and parasites in the stool, and a colonoscopy (or
a flexible sigmoidoscopy plus barium enema) in patients older than 50. Additional tests may
be necessary according to the syndromic subtype (see below) or the particular characteristics
of the patient. However, some studies questioned the cost effectiveness of such a routine
work-up, prior to a therapeutic trial for IBS (7,8).
In general, three subtypes of IBS are recognised: 1) IBS with (predominant) constipation (IBS-
C), 2) IBS with (predominant) diarrhoea (IBS-D), and 3) IBS with alternate (mixed)
constipation and diarrhoea (IBS-M).
2.2 Epidemiology and Healthcare Burden
IBS is a prevalent and expensive condition that is associated with a significantly impaired
health-related quality of life (QoL) and reduced work productivity. As mentioned, IBS is one
of the most frequent causes of referral to the gastroenterologist. However, many patients do
not seek for medical care. Thus, the true prevalence of IBS must be estimated by symptom
questionnaire in population surveys.
Based on strict criteria, 7–10 % of people have IBS worldwide (6). Community-based data
indicate that IBS-D and IBS-M subtypes are more prevalent than IBS-C, and that switching
among subtypes may occur. IBS is 1.5 times more common in women than in men, is more
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
common in lower socio-economic groups, and in people younger than 50 years of age as well.
Patients with IBS visit the doctor more frequently, use more diagnostic tests, consume more
medications, miss more workdays, have lower work productivity, are hospitalised more
frequently, and consume more overall direct costs than patients without IBS. Resource
utilization is highest in patients with severe symptoms, and poor QoL.
2.3 Pathophysiology
A detailed description of the pathophysiological mechanisms thought to be involved in the
development of IBS exceeds the purpose and scope of this educational module. Interested
readers could get complete information in excellent reviews published in recent years (911).
Evidences from investigations of the peripheral and central aspects of the bi-directional brain-
gut axis are shaping a pathophysiological model for IBS. This neurobiological model includes
alterations in autonomic, neuroendocrine, and pain modulatory mechanisms. Altered
viscerosomatic sensitivity (the so-called “visceral hyperalgesia”) seems to play a key role in
these interactions, leading to the development of symptoms of irritable bowel (12). Intestinal
infections and disturbances in intestinal microbiota have also been incriminated as a triggering
factor (13) (see below). The role of dietary components in this pathogenic network will be
discussed in the next section. Psychological stress and/or specific psychological disturbances
(anxiety/depression) contribute to exacerbate symptoms. Indeed, the prevalence of
psychiatric disorders in IBS patients has been found to range from 42% to 93% (14). It seems
likely in IBS that an understanding of the individual, including his or her psychosocial nature
and response to environmental factors influences the expression of any biologic determinants
including dietary factors (Fig. 1).
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Fig. 1. A conceptual model depicting the relationship between early life, psychosocial
factors, physiological factors, symptom experience and behaviour, and outcome in IBS
(CNS=Central Nervous System; ENS=Enteric Nervous System). Modified from (9)
3. Dietary and Nutritional Issues in IBS
As shown in Fig. 1, dietary issues are a small part of the pathophysiological network of IBS.
However, dietary counselling is a major component of the therapeutic management of these
patients. In this respect, three aspects deserve special attention:
1) The impact of adverse food reactions on IBS;
2) the nutritional consequences of IBS; and
3) the dietary management of these patients.
3.1 Adverse Reactions to Food in IBS
3.1.1 Food Avoidance
Food adverse reactions consist of any abnormal reaction after ingestion of a food, and include
a) food intolerance, b) food aversions, and c) food allergy.
Food intolerance is and adverse physiological reaction, which is mediated by nonimmunological
mechanisms and may be due to factors within the foods, such as toxins (e.g. food poisoning)
or pharmacological agents (e.g. caffeine or tyramine), enzyme deficiency of the host (e.g.
lactase deficiency) or idiosyncratic responses induced by unknown mechanisms. Food
aversions are psychological avoidance responses to any type of foods.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
About two thirds of patients with IBS believe that their symptoms are triggered by specific
foods (15,16). Foods rich in carbohydrates, as well as fatty food, coffee, alcohol and hot spices
were most frequently reported to cause symptoms, mainly bloating and abdominal pain (15).
In spite that this causative relationship is difficult to prove, a majority of patients limit or
exclude food items from their diet, and a small but relevant proportion of them have an
inadequate diet (16). A population-based case-control study (17), however, was unable to
disclose differences in the intake of wheat-containing foods, lactose-containing foods,
caffeinated drinks, and fructose-sweetened beverages between cases with functional
gastrointestinal disorders (n=99) and controls (n=119) (Fig. 2). Cases were slightly more
likely to consume norepinephrine- and epinephrine-containing foods, but not serotonin- or
tryptophan-containing foods. No differences were observed in the amount of calories, fibre,
protein, iron, calcium, and vitamins. Cases reported consuming slightly more fat and less
carbohydrates than controls. Similar results were obtained when the subgroup of IBS cases
(n=65) were compared with controls (17).
Fig. 2. Number of serving per week of frequently suspected “culprit” foods, as assessed by
food frequency questionnaire, between cases with functional GI disorders and controls
(p=NS in every case) (17)
3.1.2 Food Allergy
Only a minority of food avoidance, both in the general population and IBS patients, are due to
true food allergy. The prevalence of food allergy in the general population is greatest in the
first few years of life, affecting about 6% of infants under 3 years of age, and decreases over
the first decade, being lower than 4% in the adulthood.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Food allergy is an abnormal or exaggerated immunological response to a food antigen, which
can be due to 1) a classic type 1 IgE-mediated immediate reaction to the offending food; 2) a
type 4 cell-mediated delayed hypersensitivity response, or 3) a combination of both
mechanisms.
A careful history may establish a suspicion of a food-induced allergic reaction, the type of food
involved and the relationship between the time of ingestion and the onset of symptoms. There
is no gold standard diagnostic procedure for gastrointestinal food allergy. Skin prick test and
the radioallergosorbent test (RAST) for IgE suggest the presence of systemic sensitisation, but
by no means imply food allergy. At present, a double-blind placebocontrolled food challenge
is considered the only conclusive method for diagnosing food allergy. However, it is associated
with several practical problems: a) the lack of a read-out system, b) the variable time between
ingestion and the onset of symptoms, and most importantly c) the lack of discrimination
between food allergy and food intolerance (18,19).
Studies evaluating adverse food reactions in IBS patients have found a poor concordance
between the types of food causing the symptoms and the results of food allergy tests (namely,
skin prick test or serum IgE levels to specific food antigens) (16,20). In a study of 128
consecutive patients with IBS adverse reactions to one or more foods were reported by 80
patients (63%), and skin prick tests were positive in 67 cases (52%). However, there was
little concordance between the specific foods reported to cause intolerance and those positive
to the skin test (11 of 80 patients; 14%) (20) (Fig. 3), suggesting either a lack of accuracy of
skin tests or that type 1 food allergy is not a cause of IBS symptoms.
Fig. 3. Comparison between reported food intolerance and positive skin prick test to the
same allergens in 128 IBS patients (20)
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
In contrast to IgE, IgG antibodies to food are common in the normal population and often have
been considered physiological. However, IgG-mediated food hypersensitivity has been claimed
to play a role in IBS (21). In a randomised controlled trial, Atkinson et al. (22) assessed the
effectiveness of a food elimination diet based on the presence of specific IgG antibodies as
treatment of IBS patients. One hundred and fifty patients were randomised to receive either
a true diet based on patient’s individual food antibody profile or a sham diet excluding a similar
number of foods, but not those to they had antibodies. Participants remained on the diet for
12 weeks and were then observed during a 4-week food reintroduction phase. After 12 weeks,
the true diet resulted in a 10% greater reduction in symptom score than the sham diet with a
mean difference of 39 points (95%CI: 5–72; p=0.024) with this value increasing to 26% in
fully compliant patients (mean difference 101 points; 95%CI: 54–147; p<0.001) (22) (Fig.
4). Relaxing the diet led to a 24% greater deterioration in symptoms in those on the true diet
(difference 52 points; 95% CI 18–88; p=0.003) (22). The mechanisms by which IgG food
antibodies could mediate this detrimental effect is unclear, and further research in this area is
warranted.
Fig. 4. Mean change in IBS symptom severity score after 12 weeks on true or
sham elimination diets based on specific IgG food profile (22)
3.1.3 Carbohydrate Malabsorption
The role of individual sugar (i.e. lactose, fructose, sorbitol) malabsorption in the development
of symptoms of irritable bowel deserves particular comment. Lactose malabsorption has been
reported to occur in about 25% of patients with IBS in the USA and Northern Europe (7,23),
whereas the prevalence may be as high as 52%-68% in Mediterranean countries (24,25). In
addition to geographical influences, patient selection may account for these differences.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Lactose malabsorption can cause osmotic diarrhoea and bloating, and hence may be more
frequent in the subset of patients in whom these symptoms predominate (24). In a series of
unselected Finish patients, there was a poor relationship between lactose malabsorption,
lactose intolerance and symptoms of irritable bowel (26). A more recent study indicates that
lactose is, indeed, responsible for symptoms in some IBS patients, but these patients can only
be identified by the occurrence of symptoms during the hydrogen breath test, and not on the
individual perception of milk intolerance (27).
On the light of these data, routine investigation of lactose malabsorption in every patient with
IBS does not seem advisable. However, lactose malabsorption should be investigated, by
means of a hydrogen breath test after an oral load of lactose, in those patients in whom
diarrhoea and/or bloating predominate, particularly in countries where lactase deficiency is
highly prevalent.
Fructose and sorbitol malabsorption also occur among patients with IBS. The prevalence of
malabsorption is particularly high when both sugars are administered together (31%-92%)
(24,28,29). Although these figures do not differ from those found in healthy controls (24,29),
the intensity of symptoms after the ingestion of these sugars is significantly higher in IBS
patients (24,29). Such a difference does not appear to be due to intestinal dysmotility and
hypersensitivity to distension (30). Some authors advocate for an increased fermentative
capacity in patients with IBS (24,31), whereas other investigators suggested that intestinal
bacterial overgrowth may account for this phenomenon (32). As in the case of lactose,
hydrogen breath tests using fructose, sorbitol and fructose+sorbitol mixtures as substrate
should be performed in IBS patients with predominating diarrhoea and/or bloating symptoms.
3.1.4 Gluten Sensitivity
Recently, interest has been raised on the potential overlap between celiac disease and IBS.
The prevalence of celiac disease in the general population is about 0.2% to 0.3%, whereas
recent reports indicate that this figure may increase 10%-20% in IBS patients (33-36). It is
possible, however, that this subset of IBS patients simply may represent a cohort of
misdiagnosed patients with celiac disease. To address this issue, it would be helpful to know
the prevalence of IBS in patients diagnosed of celiac disease who are adherent to a glutenfree
diet, as well as to know whether treating celiac disease improves irritable bowel symptoms
(37). The issue of routinely screening patients with IBS for celiac disease is still a matter of
debate (38-40).
3.2 Nutritional Consequences of IBS
Fortunately, malnutrition is not particularly prevalent among IBS patients. In fact, the
diagnosis of IBS must be questioned in the presence of marked nutritional deficiencies or
weight loss. In this setting, the diagnostic work-up for organic disease must undoubtedly be
expanded with specific imaging and laboratory tests to rule-out inflammatory bowel disease,
celiac disease, gastrointestinal neoplasm, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, etc.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Despite the rarity of malnutrition in IBS, some patients tend to attribute all his/her symptoms
to the “last meal they ate”. Thus, they would eat a more and more restrictive and imbalanced
diet which can lead them to protein-energy malnutrition or micronutrient deficiencies.
3.3 Dietary Management of IBS
Dietary advice may be a good complement of pharmacological approaches in the treatment of
IBS. It should be kept in mind, however, that excessive dietary restrictions may be the cause
nutritional deficiencies in otherwise ‘healthy’ patients. In the following paragraphs, the
following items will be discussed: a) the role of exclusion diets in IBS , with particular attention
paid to sugar-free diets; b) the role of dietary fibre and bulking agents in these patients; and
3) the impact of modifications of intestinal microbiota in the management of symptoms of
irritable bowel.
3.3.1 ‘Primum non nocere’
The treatment of IBS should be based on the nature and severity of the symptoms, the degree
of physiological disturbance and functional impairment, and the presence of psychosocial
disturbances affecting the course of the illness. Patients with mild symptoms respond to
education and reassurance, whereas antispasmodic (anticholinergics) drugs or low-dose
antidepressant agents (either tricyclic or serotonin-reuptake inhibitors) are recommended in
more symptomatic patients (41-43). However, it should be kept in mind that 40%-70%
respond to placebo alone (44).
In this setting, it is important to avoid restrictive and monotonous diets since, as mentioned,
many IBS patients tend to exclude from their diet a great number of foodstuffs without a firm
reason to do that. After an accurate dietary interview, most patients will realise that a given
foodstuff which apparently caused symptoms on one occasion was well tolerated in many other
instances. Therefore, in general, most patients with IBS could (and should) eat a balanced
diet without restrictions.
3.3.2 Exclusion Diets
A review of the seven clinical trials published from 1980 to 1996, whereby dietary exclusion
was followed by food challenge (45) showed that positive response to an elimination diet
ranged from 15% to 71%, and double-blind placebo-controlled challenges identified problem
foods in 6% to 58% of cases. Milk, wheat and eggs, as well as foods high in salicylates (coffee,
nuts, corn, wine, tomato, etc.) or amines (chocolate, bananas, wine, tomato, etc.) were most
often identified as causing symptom exacerbation. These findings have been confirmed in a
more recent systematic review (46) including eight studies with a total of 540 IBS patients.
However, most studies were uncontrolled and the response rate to exclusion diets ranged from
12.5% to 67% (Fig. 5).
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Fig. 5. Response rates in eight studies of exclusion diet in IBS patients. Data from (46)
Although many of these papers claimed that such responses demonstrated the efficacy of
exclusion diets in IBS, such a conclusion is difficult to generalise given the high placebo
response in this condition. Therefore, even realising that exclusion diets may have a
therapeutic role in a minority of selected patients with IBS (47), most recent guidelines state
that “there is insufficient evidence that exclusion diets are efficacious in IBS and their routine
use outside of a clinical trial is not recommended” (42).
While generalised restriction diets are not advisable, specific avoidance of unabsorbed, highly
fermentable, short-chain carbohydrates – collectively termed FODMAPs (Fermentable
Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides, and Polyols) – may be useful in IBS
patients (particularly those in whom diarrhoea and/or bloating are the predominant
symptoms). FODMAPs can include fructose and lactose in patients in whom these are
malabsorbed, polyols (such as sorbitol and xylitol) because they are generally poorly absorbed
by humans, and fructo-oligosaccharides (fructans) and galacto-oligosaccharides (such as
raffinose), for which humans do not express suitable hydrolases and are always poorly
absorbed. Major dietary FODMAPs include fructose and fructans. Lactose is mainly found in
dairy products. Common dietary sources of fructose are fruits, honey, and high fructose corn
syrup, and of fructans they are wheat and onions. Tables 2 and 3 describe the lactose,
fructose, and sorbitol contents of dietary sources of these sugars (48,49).
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Table 2 Lactose content of milk and some dairy products*
Food Type Lactose (g/100 g)
Milk Whole** 4.6
Semi-skimmed** 4.7
Skimmed** 4.8
Evaporated, whole** 8.5
Condensed, whole, sweetened** 12.3
Dried skimmed** 52.9
Goat 4.4
Sheep 5.1
Cream Single 2.2
Double 1.7
Sour 2.7
Crème fraiche 2.1
Crème fraiche half fat 3.0
Imitation cream (e.g. Tip top, Dream
Topping)
2.3-6.8
Cheese Brie/Camembert Trace
Cheddar 0.1
Cheese spread 4.4
Cheese spread, reduced fat 7.3
Cottage cheese 3.1
Cottage cheese, reduced fat 3.3
Crème cheese Trace
Danish blue Trace
Stilton 0.1
Edam/Gouda Trace
Feta 1.4
Goat’s cheese 0.9
Mozzarella Trace
Parmesan 0.9
Processed cheese slices 5.0
Yoghurt Plain 4.7
Fruit 4.0
Drinking yoghurt 4.0
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Fromage frais 4.0
Tzatziki 0.3
*Adapted from (48)
**Cow’s milk
Table 3 Fructose and sorbitol content of some foodstuffs*
Food item Fructose Sorbitol Excess free
fructose**
Fruits (g/100 g edible portion)
Apples, raw 6-8 0.2-1 2-7
Pears, raw 5-9 1.2-4.5 3-8
Mangoes, raw 2-4 ND 0.5-3.5
Kiwifruit, raw 4-5 ND 0
Oranges, raw 2-3 ND 0
Grapes, raw 5-7 0.2 0
Papaya, raw 2-3 ND 0-2
Cherries, raw 5-7 1.4-2.1 0
Plums, raw 1-4 0.3-2.8 0
Plums, dried 14-16 14-16 0
Pineapple, raw 2-3 0 0-1
Grapefruit, raw 1-3 ND 0
Watermelon, raw 3-5 ND 0-4
Peaches, raw 0.2-1.5 0.2-1.3 0
Bananas, raw 2-4 0 0
Strawberries, raw 1-3 <0.1 0
Blackberries, raw 2-3 ND 0
Raspberries, raw 1-3 <0.1 0
Custard apple, raw 8.2 ND 0.7
Passion fruit, raw 2-4 ND 0
Figs, raw 2.8 0 0
Figs, dried 26-28 0 0
Pomegranates, raw 4-6 ND 0-1.5
Coconut, raw 1-3 ND 0-1.5
Blueberries, raw 3-4 ND 0
Melon, raw 2-4 ND 0-3
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Fruit juices (g/100 ml)
Apple juice 6-8 0.3-1 2-7
Pear juice 5-9 1.1-2-6 3-8
Grape juice 4 0 0
Prune juice 14 13 0
Grapefruit juice 1-3 ND 0-1
Orange juice 2-6 0 0
Pineapple juice 1.4 0 0
Tomato juice 1-3 ND 0-2
Legumes and vegetables (g/100 g edible portion)
Aubergine, raw 1-3 ND 0
Onion, raw 0.9 ND 0
Beans, raw 1-1.5 ND 0-1
Cabbage, white, raw 1.6 ND 0
Cucumber, raw 0.9 ND 0
Soya, raw 0.5 ND 0.3
Lentils, raw 0.3 ND 0.2
Chickpeas, raw 0.3 ND 0.1
Asparagus, raw 1.4 ND 0.4
Carrots, raw 1 ND 0
Leek, raw 1.5 ND 0.5
Lettuce, raw 0.6 ND 0
Peas, sweet, raw 0 ND 0
Potato, raw 0 ND 0
Tomato, raw 1-1.5 ND 0-0.4
Alcoholic beverages (g/100 ml)
Brandy 16-17 ND 0
Whisky 8-9 ND 0-2
Vermouth 2-6 ND 0
Soft drinks (g/100 ml)
Ginger Ale 3-5 ND 0
Cola drinks 6 ND 0
Lemon drinks 5.2 ND 0
Orange drinks 5.6 ND 0
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Other foods (g/100 g)
Honey 41 ND 7
Succedaneum honey 34 25 31
Jams 1-4.5 1-25 0-0.5
Quince jelly 21 27 20
Chocolate 20-60 ND 20-60
Hard nougat 15-30 ND 25-30
Chewing-gum 0 up to 59 0
Biscuits 0 17-33 0
*Adapted from (49)
** Free fructose as monosaccharide in excess of free glucose
Previous uncontrolled studies specifically restricting lactose alone (25), or fructose with or
without sorbitol (49-51) in patients who malabsorbed these sugars showed that this approach
could be useful both in the short- and the long-time (49,50). In a recently published double-
blinded, randomized, quadruple arm, placebo-controlled rechallenge trial Shepherd et al. (52)
have proven that the effect of this dietary change is due to sugar restriction and not to placebo
effect (44). Twenty-five IBS fructose-malabsorber patients who had previously responded to
dietary change were randomly challenged by graded dose introduction of fructose, fructans,
alone or in combination, or glucose (placebo) taken as drinks with meals for maximum test
period of 2 weeks, with at least 10-day washout period between (52). Seventy percent of
patients receiving fructose, 77% receiving fructans, and 79% receiving a mixture reported
symptoms (mimicking previous their previous IBS symptoms) which were not adequately
controlled with rechallenge, compared with 14% receiving glucose (P< 0.002). Similarly, the
severity of overall and individual symptoms was significantly and markedly less for glucose
than other substances (52).
In practice, it is important to keep in mind that 1) unabsorbed sugars induce symptoms in a
dose-dependent manner, and 2) absorption of a sugar may be either facilitated or interfered
by other sugars or nutrients. Table 4 describes some practical issues to optimise the effect of
dietary sugar reduction on the basis of these mechanisms.
Table 4 Dietary strategies for sugar malabsorption designed on the basis of their
small intestinal handling*
Substrate Small intestinal handling Dietary strategies
Lactose Lactase is a saturable enzyme Dairy products with low-lactose
content (mature cheese, yoghurt)
may be tolerated
Fructose Impairment of carrier-mediated
facilitated diffusion of low-capacity
Limit “free fructose” (in excess of
glucose)
Avoid fully mature fruits
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Absorption facilitated by glucose Co-ingestion of glucose with high
“free fructose” foods
Absorption facilitated by some
amino acids
Not utilised
Absorption saturable with high
fructose loads
Avoid high fructose load (with or
without glucose) at a single meal
Absorption impaired by sorbitol Avoid co-ingestion of sorbitol
Fructans No small intestinal hydrolysis or
absorption
Limit food with significant (>0.5
g/serving) fructan content
Sorbitol Absorption impaired by fructose Avoid co-ingestion of fructose
*Adapted in part from (51)
3.3.3 Dietary Fibre and Bulking Agents
For years, high-fibre diets and/or the addition of bulking agents (i.e. bran) have been accepted
as effective therapeutic measures to regularize bowel function and to reduce pain in patients
with IBS. However, the quality of the evidence supporting this recommendation is poor.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Fig. 6. Meta-analysis of 12 randomised controlled trials of fibre versus placebo or low
fibre diet in IBS. Events are persistence or unimprovement of either global symptoms of IBS
or abdominal pain. Data from (53)
The most recently published systematic review (53) found 12 randomised controlled trials with
global endpoints dealing with this issue (Fig. 6). Most were over 15 years old and, therefore,
tended to be small (as a whole involving 591 subjects), had suboptimal experimental design,
and utilized a variety of experimental agents and conditions. IBS-C was differentiated from
IBS-D in only three studies; two of these recruited only IBS-C patients and in the other, almost
half of the participants had IBS-C. The other nine studies did not specify which IBS subtypes
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
were included. Most studies did not use criteria-based diagnosis, concealed allocation,
adequate blinding, or other methods now recommended in modern study design. Nine trials
were double blinded, two were single-blinded, and one was unblinded. Few were at least eight
weeks in duration and none followed patients beyond the period of treatment.
Most studies examined the effect of wheat bran or psyllium hydrophilic mucilloid (Isphagula
or Plantago ovata husk). Taken as a group, treatment with wheat bran provided no global
benefit in patients with IBS. Overall, the relative risk of IBS symptoms not improving with
wheat bran was 1.02 (95%CI=0.82-1.27) (53) (Fig. 6). In contrast, global IBS symptoms
were improved in four of the six studies with Isphagula husk. The relative risk of IBS symptoms
not improving with this agent was 0.78 (95%CI=0.63-0.96) (53) (Fig. 6). Safety issues and
adverse events were not addressed formally in these studies of bulking agents. Clinical studies
and expert opinion suggest that increased fibre intake may cause bloating, abdominal
distension, and flatulence, especially if increased suddenly because, as mentioned before,
patients with IBS appear to have an increased fermentative capacity (24,31).
In spite of the above considerations, high-fibre diets or fibre supplements should not be totally
withdrawn from the therapeutic armamentarium for IBS. Fibre supplements would be
particularly useful in those patients with constipation. Hydrophilic colloids such as Isphagula,
and methyl-cellulose tend to produce less gas (or at an slower rate). In addition, because their
hydrophilic properties, these agents bind water and prevent both excessive stool dehydration
and excess liquidity. Thus, they may be equally effective for patients in whom either
constipation or diarrhoea predominate. In order to minimise bloating, gradual titration is
advised if these agents are used (54).
3.3.4 Probiotics and Prebiotics
In recent years, evidence is growing for a pathogenic role of intestinal microbiota in IBS.
Changes in faecal (luminal) microbiota may lead to increased carbohydrate fermentation and
symptoms such as bloating and diarrhoea. Also, mucosa-associated microbiota may lead to
up-regulation of the intestinal innate immune response in a similar (albeit attenuated) way as
in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Indeed it has been suggested that IBS would make part
of a spectrum of intestinal inflammation ranging from “physiological” inflammation in normal
gut to high grade inflammation with macroscopic damage in IBD (Fig. 7). On the other hand,
the well-recognised phenomenon of the development of IBS symptoms shortly after a
gastrointestinal infection is a further argument for a role of bacteria in the pathogenesis of
IBS. The interested reader will found an excellent comprehensive review of the relationship
between gastrointestinal microbiota and IBS in reference #(13).
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Figure 7. A “pyramid” of gastrointestinal disorders showing IBS as a part of a spectrum of
inflammation. *IBD=Inflammatory Bowel Disease (ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease); #includes lymphocytic and colleagenous colitis. Modified from (13)
3.3.4.1 Probiotics
Probiotics are defined as “live microorganisms, which, when administered in adequate
amounts, confer a health benefit on the host” . Probiotic products widely vary in delivery
systems (e.g., yoghurts, fermented milks, powders, capsules), species (e.g., Lactobacilli,
Bifidobacteria, Streptococci) and strains, and dose (from 108 to 1011 bacteria). Probiotics
may be of benefit in managing the symptoms of IBS via a number of mechanisms such as 1)
increasing mucosal anti-inflammatory and reducing proinflammatory cytokines, 2) directly
modulate intestinal pain (some probiotic species have been shown to up-regulate μ-opioid and
cannabinoid receptors both in vitro and in vivo), 3) blocking the actions of potentially
pathogenic bacteria on toll-like receptors in the innate arm of the immune system, and 4)
enhancing the mucosal barrier function.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
placebo in IBS and reporting a dichotomou s outcome. E vents are persistence or
unimprovement of symptoms of IBS. Data from (55)
A very recent systematic review with meta-analysis (55) identified 19 studies including a total
of 1,668 participants that were deemed eligible. The quality of studies was reasonably good
with nine reporting an adequate method of randomisation and six describing appropriate
methods of concealment of allocation. All but three recruited patients according to Rome or
Manning criteria.
Ten trials evaluated 918 participants and reported IBS symptoms as a dichotomous outcome
(Fig. 8).
Taken as a group, probiotics had a statistically significant effect to reduce IBS symptoms
(relative risk of symptoms persisting in probiotic group = 0.71; 95%CI=0.57-0.88). However,
these data probably overestimate the effects of probiotics as there was heterogeneity and
evidence of funnel plot asymmetry, suggesting publication bias with an overrepresentation of
small positive studies in the published literature. Moreover, higher quality studies reported a
more modest treatment effect compared with lower quality trials.
Fig. 8. Meta-analysis of 10 randomised controlled trials comparing probiotics versus
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
There was no difference among the different types of probiotics used, with Lactobacilli,
Bifidobacteria, Streptococci, and combinations of probiotics all showing a trend toward benefit.
Fifteen publications with 1,351 participants reported IBS symptoms as a continuous variable
(Fig. 9).
Fig. 9. Meta-analysis of 15 randomised controlled trials comparing probiotics versus
placebo in IBS and reporting a continuous outcome. Events are change in symptoms score.
Data from (55)
Probiotics had a statistically significant effect to improve IBS symptoms compared with placebo
(standardized mean difference= -0.34; 95%CI= -0.60 to -0.07). Four trials evaluated
Lactobacilli in 200 patients and found no effect on IBS symptoms. Nine trials evaluated
combinations of probiotics in 772 patients with a significant effect in improving IBS symptoms,
whereas two trials evaluated Bifidobacteria in 379 patients with a trend toward improving IBS
symptoms.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
The main limitation of this review (55) is that there were a variety of species, strains, and
doses of probiotics used and, therefore, it was difficult to reach a conclusion about the optimal
probiotic strategy to use in patients with IBS. While the dichotomous data suggest that all
probiotic therapies show a trend for being efficacious in IBS, the continuous data suggest that
1) Lactobacilli have no impact on symptoms; 2) probiotic combinations improve symptoms in
IBS patients; and 3) there was a trend for Bifidobacteria to improve IBS symptoms.
3.3.4.2 Prebiotics
Prebiotics are selectively fermented short-chain carbohydrates that allow specific changes,
both in the composition and/or activity in the intestinal microbiota, which confer a health
benefit. Fructans and galacto-oligosaccharides are able to increase concentrations of intestinal
Bifidobacteria in both the lumen and the mucosa while not increasing the number of
Bacteroides and Clostridia.
Unfortunately, there are very few trials of prebiotics in IBS. A recent randomised controlled
trial (56) of 5 g fructan vs. placebo in 105 patients with mild functional bowel disease found
that those in the therapeutic arm had a significant decrease in the intensity of their symptoms
as assessed by a visual analogue scale. Confusingly, however, the fructan group had a
significant increase in abdominal discomfort compared to controls, probably due to an excess
in gas production. Therefore, the role of prebiotics in the management of IBS is far from being
established.
4. Chronic Constipation
Chronic constipation is not a disease but a symptom. Thus, it may be either secondary to
diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, extraintestinal disorders or drugs (Table 5), or primary
or idiopathic. In this section, dietary approaches for the prevention and management of
idiopathic chronic constipation will be discussed (57).
Table 5 Causes of secondary constipation
Mechanical obstruction
• Colorectal cancer
• Extrinsic compression of the colon
• Benign stricture (inflammatory, ischemic, post-diverticulitis, etc.)
• Hirschsprung’s disease
• Anal fissure
• Severe rectocele
Metabolic causes
• Diabetes mellitus
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
• Hypothyroidism
• Hypercalcemia
• Hypomagnesaemia
• Hypokaliemia
• Uraemia
• Porphyria
• Lead poisoning
Neurological causes
• Parkinson’s disease
• Spinal cord injury
• Cerebrovascular disease
• Multiple sclerosis
• Autonomic neuropathy
Colonic myopathies
• Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma)
• Intestinal amyloidosis
Drugs
• Opioids
• Anticholinergics
• Calcium channel blockers
• Dopaminergics (anti-parkinsonians)
• Sympathycomimetics
• Phenotiazines
• Antihistaminics
• Antacids (calcium salts)
• Antidiarrhoeal
• Bile salt binders
• Mineral supplements (calcium, iron)
4.1 Definition
According to the Chronic Constipation Task Force of the American College of Gastroenterology,
chronic constipation is a symptom-based disorder based on the presence for at least 3 months
in the last year of “unsatisfactory defecation characterized by infrequent stools, difficult stool
passage, or both. Difficult stool passage includes straining, a sense of difficulty passing stool,
incomplete evacuation, hard/lumpy stools, prolonged time to stool, or need for manual
manoeuvres to pass stool” (58). This definition is broader than the more stringent Rome II
criteria (4). These criteria allow to identify uniform groups of patients for inclusion in
randomised controlled trials, but their use is impractical in clinical practice since most patients
who refer for constipation do not fulfil them. In this sense, the American College of
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Gastroenterology definition encompasses the symptoms most commonly expressed by
patients who self-report constipation.
On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that symptom-based criteria for chronic
constipation and IBS-C might overlap. IBS is characterized by abdominal discomfort or pain,
bloating, and disturbed defecation. Most patients with chronic constipation report minimal
abdominal bloating or discomfort. Thus, in some patients it may be difficult, if not impossible,
to differentiate chronic constipation and IBS accurately.
4.2 Pathophysiology
Primary or idiopathic constipation can be broadly divided into three subtypes: 1) slow transit
constipation (the so-called colonic inertia), 2) outlet delay constipation (also known as
obstructive defecation, pelvic floor dyssynergia, pelvic floor dysfunction, defecatory
dysfunction, or anismus), and 3) functional constipation. Physiologic abnormalities in patients
with slow transit defecation include abnormal postprandial colonic motor function, autonomic
dysfunction, and reduced numbers of enterochromaffin cells and interstitial cells of Cajal (59).
Outlet delay constipation occurs as a consequence of the inability to coordinate actions of the
abdominal musculature, the anorectum, and the pelvic floor musculature (60). This prevents
straightening of the anorectal angle, which should precede the normal passage of stool.
Functional constipation include those patients with complaints of constipation but with normal
transit and normal pelvic floor function (61). However, there is a significant overlap between
these subtypes, so that a number of patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia may also have
prolonged colonic transit.
5. Dietary Prevention and Management of Chronic Constipation
Dietary measures to prevent and treat chronic constipation should be implemented in the
setting of wider lifestyle changes, some of them so simple as scheduling a regular time for
defecation and responding to a defecatory urge with no delay.
It has been claimed that a sedentary lifestyle may contribute to constipation. Several
population studies support the idea than people who are more active and perform more
physical activity have a lesser incidence of constipation (62). Physical activity affects colonic
motor function, with changes in function probably proportional to the extent of activity.
Prolonged physical inactivity in those who are normally physically active, especially in the
elderly, can reduce colonic transit, favouring constipation. However, other factors such as
cognitive function, presence of depressive symptoms, use of medications that slow bowel
motility, an inadequate diet, are likely to play a role in the elderly constipation.
In healthy subjects, only vigorous physical activity such as running a marathon increases gut
and colonic activity and can lead to dramatic increases in large bowel function. Modest physical
activity may help subjects with mild constipation, but there is no evidence that it may improve
severe constipation (62).
Increasing fluid intake does not have an important effect on colonic function, and it is not
recommended to treat constipation unless there is evidence of dehydration (62).
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
5.1 Fibre-Enriched Diet
Virtually all fibres are broken down to a greater or lesser extent in the colon. The extent of
fermentation and the range and nature of the end-products depends on a number of factors,
including the type of fibre, its physical nature (e.g. particle size), solubility, and surface area
exposed to bacterial action.
Different types of fibre have different effects on stool weight (63). The cellulosic fraction of
some cereal fibres has the greatest effect on increasing the stool weight and decreasing transit
time, since it tends to better resist digestion than non-cellulosic polysaccharides (10% of
cabbage fibre is recovered in faeces, compared with 60% of wheat bran). Soluble fibres such
as pectin or guar gum, different forms of resistant starch, and fructans are the less effective
in increasing the stool weight, and some of them are not detected in faeces after consumption,
indicating that they are completely fermented in the colon. Dietary fibre may be classified
according to their solubility, as summarised in Table 6.
Table 6 Classification of dietary fibre according to its solubility*
Type of fibre Examples
Insoluble Lignin**
Insoluble polysaccharides
Cellulose
Hemicelluloses
Soluble Soluble polysaccharides
Pectins β-Glucans
Plant exudates gums
Mucilages
Legume seed gums
Seaweed polysaccharides
Bacterial polysaccharides
Fructans
Fructo-polysaccharides (inulin)
Fructo-oligosaccharides (oligofructose)
Resistant starch
*Adapted from (57)
**Cannot be considered, sensu stricto, as fibre
Increased fibre particle size results in increased stool output. Large particles are more slowly
degraded, whereas reducing the particle size increases the available surface area, resulting in
increasing digestibility, so that the cellulose content of finely ground bran is digested faster
than that in coarse bran. Furthermore, indigestible plastic particles cut to the same size as
coarse wheat bran flakes induce a comparable increase in stool weight.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
A diet poor in fibre should not be assumed to be the cause of constipation but could be a
contributing factor. There is not doubt that intake of dietary fibre, mainly insoluble fibre,
increases stool bulk and frequency, and decreases consistency in healthy people. A classical
meta-analysis (64) showed that in 18 of 20 studies stool weight was increased by adequate
fibre supplementation, and there was increased faecal transit. These findings indicate that an
inadequate diet with a diminished intake of dietary fibre may contribute to constipation in
great number of patients. These patients may be considered to suffer from a “relative fibre
deficiency”, as they have not identifiable cause of their complaints. However, there is a subset
of patients with more severe constipation secondary to slow transit and/or pelvic floor
dyssynergia who get worse with an increase in dietary fibre intake (62). Despite that, all
constipated subjects should be advised to increase their dietary fibre intake as an initial
measure since this is the simplest, most physiologic, and cheapest form of treatment (57). In
those people in whom fibre aggravates abdominal distension or in whom fibre lead to
incontinence (mainly in elderly subjects), a reduction in their fibre intake should be
recommended.
On the other hand, gas production from fibre metabolism may limit acceptance. This is
particularly true from extensively fermented fibres (usually the soluble types), which lead to
increased bulk in colon by increasing microbial mass. Less fermentable fibres (usually the
insoluble types) produce less gas and contribute to increasing bulk in the colon by their water-
holding properties. Water-holding appears to be inversely related to solubility and thus to rate
of fermentation by colonic microflora. Highly fermentable have a less pronounced effect of
stool weight than less fermentable ones. Increased bulk in the colon decreases transit time,
which in turn results in decreased water reabsorption, and as a consequence wetter stools and
thus increased stool weight (63).
Therefore, the optimum way of improving colonic function in the majority constipated patients
is to prescribe a diet with a higher fibre content than that ingested previously. The amount of
fibre that is necessary to correct constipation varies in different people, but the effect of fibre
on stool weight is dose dependent. Whereas in some subjects 10 g of fibre per 1000 kcal may
be enough, others may require 20 g per 1000 kcal. In a review of over 100 studies on the
effect of fibre intake on stool weight (65), there was a wide range of the contribution of dietary
fibre to faecal weight (i.e., an increase of 5.7 g faecal bulk per gram of wheat bran fed
compared to an increase of 1.3 g per gram of pectin in the diet). The 2005 Dietary Guidelines
of the US Government recommend a daily fibre intake of 14 g per 1000 kcal to reduce the risk
of cardiovascular disease and promote healthful laxation (for a critical daily stool weight of
160–200 g) (66). In general, patients with chronic constipation require greater doses of fibre
than do healthy subjects in order to produce similar increases in stool weight (64). In starting
a fibre-enriched diet, the total amount of fibre should be progressively increased to improve
tolerance. An appropriately balanced soluble and insoluble fibre intake is likely to be the better
option. However, some patients will tolerate insoluble better than soluble fibre, and vice versa.
5.2 Fibre Supplements (Bulking Agents)
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
Dietary fibre supplementation can be achieved by increasing the ingestion of fibre-rich foods
as described before, or by providing commercially available fibre supplements. Bulking agents
are a concentrated form of non-starch polysaccharides useful for patients who cannot achieve
adequate dietary fibre intake from conventional foodstuffs. Available bulking agents include
psyllium (Isphagula husk), wheat bran, calcium polycarbophil, methylcellulose, guar gum, and
sterculia (Indian tragacanth or karaya).
A systematic review on the use of psyllium for chronic constipation (67) identified three
randomised placebo-controlled trials. They demonstrated improvements in stool frequency
and consistency at doses ranging from 10 to 24 g/day. However, only one trial was of high
quality and enough duration (>4 weeks), despite including only 22 patients (68). In an
observational study (69), 149 patients were treated with psyllium under the form of Plantago
ovata seeds, 15–30 g daily, for a period of at least 6 weeks. There was an 85% improvement
in patients functional constipation, whereas there was a poor response to treatment among
patients with slow colonic transit or pelvic floor dyssynergia (69).
In it noteworthy that despite the popularity of bran as a treatment of constipation, there is
only one placebo-controlled trial on the effect of wheat bran in chronic constipation, showing
no differences between therapy groups in the improvement of stool frequency or consistency
(67). Also, there are no placebo-controlled trials examining the effect of the other bulking
agents above mentioned. Small trials comparing some of these agents versus psyllium have
failed to demonstrate differences in stool frequency or consistency (67).
In summary, bulking agents may be effective in alleviating chronic constipation in patients
without slow colonic transit or pelvic floor dyssynergia. If the patient is compliant, fibre
treatment may help up to 80%. However, the same results could be obtained by dietary means
encouraging patients to eat either a supplement of natural bran or a fibre-enriched diet (57).
5.3 Probiotics and Prebiotics
Some studies have shown that milk or yoghurt fermented with different types of probiotics
may reduce intestinal transit time and increase the daily stool number in constipated patients.
In a double-blind, randomised, crossover design, Bifidobacterium animalis strain DN-173 010
reduced the colonic transit time as compared to placebo in a group of healthy young women
(70). In a recently published trial (71), 266 women with functional constipation were
randomised to receive this probiotic strain or placebo for 14 days. Treatment with the probiotic
was associated with a higher bowel frequency (6.1±2.7 stools/week vs. 5.0±2.6 dep./week in
controls; P<0.01), an improvement in the quality of the stools according to the Bristol scale
(3.6±1.0 vs. 3.4±1.0; P<0.01), a reduced perception of straining effort (1.9±0.8 vs. 2.2±0.9;
P<0.01) and a reduced perception of pain associated with defecation (0.1±0.2 vs. 0.2±0.3;
P<0.01) (71). Other Bifidobacteria (B. lactis, B. longum) have also proven to normalise bowel
habit in elderly nursing home residents (72).
Promising results have been also obtained with Lactobacillus casei Shirota (73), Escherichia
coli Nissle 1917 strain (74), but not with Lactobacillus GG (75). Thus, probiotics may be
effective in patients with mild to moderate constipation but this effect may dependent on the
bacterial strain used and the population being studied. On the other hand, there are no studies
evaluating the effect of probiotics as compared to fibre supplements (psyllium). The widely
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
used laxative lactulose is not digested by human disaccharidases, and is a substrate for the
bifidobacteria in the colonic flora. Thus, it is in fact, a prebiotic. Several trials have shown that
lactulose (15–30 ml twice a day) is effective at increasing stool frequency and stool consistency
in patients with mild to moderate chronic constipation. Other prebiotics would be a promising
therapy of chronic constipation.
6. Diverticular Disease
Although diverticula (i.e. pouches protruding outwards the wall of the bowel) may occur
anywhere in the gut, the term “diverticular disease” usually denotes the presence of diverticula
in the large intestine, particularly in the sigmoid colon. In fact, 95% of cases of colonic
diverticula involve this segment, and it is exclusively affected in 65% of patients.
6.1 Epidemiology and Clinical Spectrum
Diverticular disease is very common, particularly in industrialised countries. The prevalence of
this condition increases with the age, being rare in individuals younger than 40, whereas it
occurs in more than one-third of subjects over 65. Diverticular disease is rare in people who
live in developing countries. However, the risk rapidly increases when this people migrate to
Western societies.
About 80% of patients with diverticular disease never have any symptoms. When
symptomatic, patients complain from pain in the left lower quadrant of the abdomen, usually
colic, and changes in bowel habit. In fact, these symptoms mostly resemble those of IBS.
Complications occurs in about 5% of cases and mainly consist of infection of a diverticulum
(diverticulitis) which may lead to bowel perforation or abscess formation. Gastrointestinal
bleeding is rare may also occur, particularly from diverticula arising in the right colon.
A full description of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and management
of the entire spectrum of diverticular disease is out of the scope of this educational module.
Interested readers may find valuable information in recent reviews (76,77).
6.2 Pathophysiology
The most widely pathogenic theory for diverticular disease states that this is a consequence
of deficient intake of dietary fibre. This view is supported by data from large prospective
cohorts showing that the combination insoluble component of fibre – mainly cellulose – is
inversely associated with the risk of diverticular disease and that the risk is particularly strong
when low-fibre diets are combined with high-fat and high red meat intake (78,79).
Fibre deficiency would lead to low-volume stools which result in alterations in colonic motility
that produce increased intraluminal pressures (80). High intraluminal pressures are generated
when the sigmoid colon undergoes “segmentation”, a process during which smooth muscle
contraction separates the colon into functionally distinct compartments (81). This normal
physiologic process becomes exaggerated in those with low-volume stools, thereby generating
markedly elevated intrasegmental colonic pressures that are then transmitted to the colonic
wall. The law of Laplace, which states that intraluminal pressure is inversely related to lumen
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
diameter, has been used to explain the role of low-volume stools in the generation of increased
luminal pressures and development of diverticula (82).
Examination of surgical and post-mortem specimens has offered insight into the structural
changes found in patients with diverticular disease. The term myochosis has been coined to
describe the contracted, thickened appearance of the colon folds. Originally thought to be
secondary to circular muscle hypertrophy, the colon’s corrugated appearance is now known to
be a secondary effect of bowel shortening and increased elastin deposition (83). The exact
reason for elastin deposition in patients with diverticular disease is unknown, although some
have implicated increased uptake of proline from Western diets (82). Further support for the
role of connective tissue changes in the pathophysiology of diverticulosis comes from the
finding that patients with Marfan and Ehlers–Danlos syndromes develop diverticula at an early
age.
7. Dietary Management of Uncomplicated Diverticular Disease
No treatment or follow-up has to be offered to the majority of patients with asymptomatic
diverticulosis, and to those with a single previous episode of symptoms of uncomplicated
diverticular disease due to the low risk of recurrence. Treatment of recurrent uncomplicated
diverticular disease is aimed at relief of symptoms and prevention of major complications, but
the standard approach is still debated. The principal treatments are a fibre-rich diet and non-
absorbable antibiotics, but alternatives include mesalazine and probiotics. In the next
paragraphs the role of dietary approaches to the treatment of diverticular disease (i.e. dietary
fibre, and pro- and prebiotics) will be discussed.
7.1 Fibre Supplementation
The beneficial effects of fibre supplementation in symptomatic diverticular disease were first
reported in 1977 in a double-blind controlled trial of 18 patients assessing the therapeutic
value of increasing the daily dietary fibre intake with 6.7 g/day of bran over 3 months (84).
In this study, significantly greater symptomatic relief was obtained by those on a high fibre
regimen than by those in the control group, despite a marked initial placebo effect (84).
Two subsequent randomized controlled trials reported differing results. In the first one, 85
patients with uncomplicated diverticular disease took bran crispbread (7 g/day fibre),
Isphagula drink (9 g/day fibre), and placebo (2.3 g/day fibre) for four months each in a
randomised, cross-over, double-blind design (85). There were no significant differences on
symptom relief although both active treatments significantly reduced straining at stool,
increased wet stool weight and stool frequency, and significantly softened the stools (85). The
second trial comparing methylcellulose (1 g daily) and placebo in 30 patients also reached a
similar conclusion over a follow-up period of 3 months (86). Both studies did not assess
complication rates related to diverticular disease. Finally, previous observational studies have
reported that a high fibre diet prevents the development of symptomatic diverticular disease
(78,79) and its complications (87,88) despite a compliance rate of only 72% for fibre-
supplementation. However, despite these conflicting data and the certainty that diverticula do
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
not regress with an increased fibre intake, some amelioration of symptoms in patients with
uncomplicated diverticular disease can be seen with high-fibre diet.
7.2 Probiotics and Prebiotics
The first report on the use of probiotics in diverticular disease comes from a prospective
observational trial on the prevention of complications after acute diverticulitis (89). Patients
with a postdiverticular stenosis of the colon were treated sequentially with rifaximin and
Lactobacilli for a period of 12 months. This treatment proved to be effective in preventing
symptom recurrence and complications (89). The efficacy of probiotic treatment as a single
therapy for uncomplicated diverticular disease has been assessed in one study with 15 patients
(90). The non-pathogenic E. coli Nissle 1917 strain was given for a mean period of 5 weeks
after a course of treatment with an intestinal antimicrobial and absorbent, resulting in a
significantly prolonged remission period and significant improvement of all abdominal
symptoms (90). More recently, a three-arm randomised controlled trial of mesalazine,
Lactobacillus casei DG, or the combination of the above showed that both mesalazine and L.
casei DG are effective in preventing recurrence of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular
disease, but their association seems to be more promising in this field (91). Although there is
a rationale for using prebiotics in diverticular disease (particularly as maintenance therapy),
to date, there is no data on the effectiveness of these agents in these patients.
8. Summary
Many patients with IBS believe that their symptoms are triggered by specific foods. However,
objective demonstration of these self-reported food intolerances is difficult. True food allergy
account for a minority of intolerances, whereas carbohydrate (i.e. lactose, fructose, sorbitol )
malabsorption is easier to document. In general, patients with IBS could (and should) eat a
balanced diet without restrictions, and (except for malabsorbed sugars) exclusion diets are
not useful in the majority of them.
Increasing fibre intake has been recommended for years as first-line therapy for IBS. However,
the quality of the evidence supporting this recommendation is poor. Despite this, high-fibre
diets or fibre supplements should not be totally withdrawn from the therapeutic
armamentarium for IBS. Hydrophilic colloids (i.e. Isphagula, methyl-cellulose) prevent both
excessive stool dehydration and excess liquidity, and may be equally effective for patients in
whom either constipation or diarrhoea predominate.
Increasing fibre intake is useful for preventing and treating functional chronic constipation,
but this may worsen symptoms in patients with colonic inertia and/or pelvic floor dyssynergia.
Also, fibre intake may help some patients with uncomplicated diverticular disease (although
evidences are not much strong).
There is growing evidence for the effectiveness of probiotics in IBS, chronic constipation, and
diverticular disease (depending on the strain used). Data on the usefulness of prebiotics in
these situations are still very scarce.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
References
1. Manning AP, Thompson WG, Heaton KW, Morris AF. Towards positive diagnosis of the
irritable bowel. Br Med J 1978; 2 :653-654.
2. Kruis W, Thieme C, Weinzierl M, Schüssler P, Holl J, Paulus W. A diagnostic score for the
irritable bowel syndrome. Its value in the exclusion of organic disease. Gastroenterology
1984; 87:1-7.
3. Thompson WG, Creed F, Drossman DA, Heaton KW, Mazzacca G. Functional bowel
disorders and chronic functional abdominal pain. Gastroenterol Internat 1992; 5:75-91.
4. Thompson WG, Longstreth GF, Drossman DA, Heaton KW, Irvine EJ, Müller-Lissner SA.
Functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain. Gut 1999; 45 (Suppl
2):II43II47.
5. Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD, Houghton LA, Mearín F, Spiller RC. Functional
bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:1480-1491.
6. Brandt LJ, Chey WD, Foxx-Orenstein AE, et al. An evidence-based systematic review on
the management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104 (Suppl
1):S8-S35.
7. Tolliver BA, Herrera JL, Di Palma JA. Evaluation of patients who meet clinical criteria for
irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89:176-178.
8. Hamm LR, Sorrells SC, Harding JP, et al. Additional investigations fail to alter the diagnosis
of irritable bowel syndrome in subjects fulfilling the Rome criteria. Am J Gastroenterol
1999; 94:1279-1282.
9. Drossman DA, Camilleri M, Mayer EA, Whitehead WE. AGA technical review on irritable
bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2002; 123:2108-2131.
10. Talley NJ, Spiller RC. Irritable bowel syndrome: A little understood organic bowel disease?
Lancet 2002; 360:555-564.
11. Mayer EA, Collins SM. Evolving pathophysiologic models of functional gastrointestinal
disorders. Gastroenterology 2002; 122:2032-2048.
12. Schmulson MJ, Mayer EA. Evolving concepts in irritable bowel syndrome. Curr Opin
Gastroen 1999; 15:16-21.
13. Parkes GC, Brostoff J, Whelan K, Sanderson JD. Gastrointestinal microbiota in Irritable
Bowel Syndrome: Their role in its pathogenesis and treatment. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;
103:1557-1567.
14. Drossman DA, Whitehead WE, Camilleri M. Irritable bowel syndrome: A technical review
for practice guideline development. Gastroenterology 1997; 112:2120-2137.
15. Simrén M, Mansson A, Langkilde AM, et al. Food-related gastrointestinal symptoms in the
irritable bowel syndrome. Digestion 2001; 63:108-115.
16. Monsbakken KW, Vandvik PO, Farup PG. Perceived food intolerance in subjects with
irritable bowel syndrome - etiology, prevalence and consequences. Eur J Clin Nutr 2006;
60:667-672.
17. Saito YA, Locke GR, Weaver AL, Zinsmeister AR, Talley NJ. Diet and functional
gastrointestinal disorders: A population-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol
2005; 100:2743-2748.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
18. Bischoff SC, Mayer JH, Manns MP. Allergy and gut. Arch Allergy Immunol 2000; 121:270-
283.
19. Sampson HA, Schierer SH, Birnbaum AH. AGA technical review on the evaluation of food
allergy in gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterology 2001; 120:1026-1040.
20. Dainese R, Galliani EA, De Lazzari F, Di Leo V, Naccaratto R. Discrepancies between
reported food intolerance ans sensitization tests findings in irritable bowel syndrome
patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94:1892-1897.
21. Zar S, Benson MJ, Kumar D. Food-specific serum IgG4 and IgE titers to common food
antigens in Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100:1550-1557.
22. Atkinson W, Sheldon TA, Shaath N, Whorwell PJ. Food elimination based on IgG antibodies
in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2004; 53:1459-1464.
23. Bohmer CJM, Tuynman HARE. The clinical relevance of lactose malabsorption in irritable
bowel syndrome. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996; 8:1013-1016.
24. Fernández Bañares F, Esteve-Pardo M, De León R, et al. Sugar malabsorption in functional
bowel disease: Clinical implications. Am J Gastroenterol 1993; 88:2044-2050.
25. Vernia P, Ricciardi MR, Frandina C, Bilotta T, Frieri G. Lactose malabsorption and irritable
bowel syndrome. Effect of a long-term lactose-free diet. Ital J Gastroenterol 1995;
27:117-121.
26. Vesa TH, Seppo LM, Marteau PR, Sahi T, Korpela R. Role of irritable bowel syndrome in
subjective lactose intolerance. Am J Clin Nutr 1998; 67:710-715.
27. Vernia P, Marinaro V, Argnani F, Di Camillo M, Caprilli R. Self-reported milk intolerance in
irritable bowel syndrome: what should we believe? Clin Nutr 2004; 23:996-1000.
28. Rumessen JJ, Gudmand-Hoyer E. Functional bowel disease: Malabsorption and abdominal
distress after ingestion of fructose, sorbitol, and fructose-sorbitol mixtures.
Gastroenterology 1988; 95:694-700.
29. Nelis GF, Vermeeren MAP, Jansen W. Role of fructose-sorbitol malabsorption in the
irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1990; 99:1016-1020.
30. Evans PR, Piesse C, Bak YT, Kellow JE. Fructose-sorbitol malabsorption and symptom
provocation in irritable bowel syndrome: Relationship to enteric hypersensitivity and
dysmotility. Scand J Gastroenterol 1998; 33:1158-1163.
31. King TS, Elia M, Hunter JO. Abnormal colonic fermentation in irritable bowel syndrome.
Lancet 1998; 352:1187-1189.
32. Nucera G, Gabrielli M, Lupascu A, et al. Abnormal breath tests to lactose, fructose and
sorbitol in irritable bowel syndrome may be explained by small intestinal bacterial
overgrowth. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21:1391-1395.
33. Sanders DS, Carter MJ, Hurlstone DP, et al. Association of adult celiac disease with irritable
bowel syndrome: a case-control study in patients fulfilling ROME II criteria referred to
secondary care. Lancet 2001; 358:1504-1508.
34. Wahnschaffe U, Ullrich R, Riecken EO, Schulzke JD. Celiac disease-like abnormalities in a
subgroup of patientswith irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2001;
121:13291338.
35. Shahbazkhani B, Forootan M, Merat S, et al. Celiac disease presenting with symptoms of
irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18:231-235.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
36. Wahnschaffe U, Schulzke JD, Zeitz M, Ullrich R. Predictors of clinical response to glutenfree
diet in patients diagnosed with predominant-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Clin
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5:844-850.
37. O'Learly C, Quigley EM. Small bowel bacterial overgrowth, celiac disease, and IBS: what
are the real associations? Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:720-722.
38. Drossman DA. Irritable Bowel Syndrome: How far do you go in the workup?
Gastroenterology 2001; 121:1512-1515.
39. Spiegel BM, DeRosa VP, Gralnek IM, Wang V, Dulai GS. Testing for celiac sprue in irritable
bowel syndrome with predominant diarrhoea: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Gastroenterology 2004; 126:1721-1732.
40. Mein SM, Ladabaum U. Serological testing for celiac disease in patients with symptoms of
irritable bowel syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;
19:1199-1210.
41. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: Irritable bowel
syndrome. Gastroenterology 2002; 123:2105-2107.
42. American College of Gastroenterology IBS Task Force. An evidence-based position
statement on the management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;
104 (Suppl 1):S1-S7.
43. Lesbros-Pantoflickova D, Michetti P, Fried M, Beglinger C, Blum AL. Meta-analysis: the
treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20:1253-1269.
44. Spiller RC. Problems and challenges in the design of irritable bowel syndrome clinical
trials: experience from published trials. Am J Med 1999; 107 :91S-97S.
45. Niec AM, Frankum B, Talley NJ. Are adverse food reactions linked to irritable bowel
syndrome? Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93:2184-2190.
46. Park MI, Camilleri M. Is there a role of food allergy in irritable bowel syndrome and
functional dyspepsia? A sistematic review. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2006; 18:595-607.
47. Burden S. Dietary treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: current evidence and guidelines
for future practice. J Hum Nutr Dietet 2001; 14:231-241.
48. Lomer MCE, Parkes GC, Sanderson JD. Review article: lactose intolerance in clinical
practice - myths and realities. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 27:93-103.
49. Fernández Bañares F, Rosinach M, Esteve M, Forné M, Espinós JC, Viver JM. Sugar
malabsorption in functional abdominal bloating: a pilot study on the long term effect of
dietary treatment. Clin Nutr 2006; 25:824-831.
50. Goldstein R, Braveman D, Stankiewitz H. Carbohydrate malabsorption and the effect of
dietary restriction on symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome and functional bowel
complaints. Isr Med Assoc J 2000; 2:587.
51. Shepherd SJ, Gibson PR. Fructose malabsorption and symptoms of irritable bowel
syndrome: Guidelines for effective dietary management. J Am Diet Assoc 2006;
106:1631-1639.
52. Shepherd SJ, Parker FC, Muir JG, Gibson PR. Dietary triggers of abdominal symptoms in
patients with irritable bowel syndrome: Randomized placebo-controlled evidence. Clin
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6:765-771.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
53. Ford AC, Talley NJ, Spiegel BMR, et al. Effect of fibre, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil
in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br
Med J 2008; 337:a2313.
54. Zuckerman MJ. The role of fibre in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: Therapeutic
recommendations. J Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 40:104-108.
55. Moayyedi P, Ford AC, Talley NJ, et al. The efficacy of probiotics in the therapy of irritable
bowel syndrome: a systematic review. Gut 2008; ePub ahead of
print:doi:10.1136/gut.2008.167270.
56. Paineau D, Payen F, Panserieu S, et al. The effects of regular consumption of shortchain
fructo-oligosaccharides on digestive comfort of subjects with minor functional bowel
disorders. Br J Nutr 2008; 99:311-318.
57. Fernández Bañares F. Nutritional care of the patient with constipation. Best Pract Res Clin
Gastroenterol 2006; 20:575-587.
58. American College of Gastroenterology Chronic Constipation Task Force. An evidencebased
approach to the management of chronic constipation in North America. Am J Gastroenterol
2005; 100 (Suppl 1):S1-S4.
59. Lembo A, Camilleri M. Chronic constipation. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:1360-1368.
60. Rao SSC. Dyssynergic defecation. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2001; 30:97-114.
61. Mertz H, Naliboff B, Mayer E. Physiology of refractory chronic constipation. Am J
Gastroenterol 1999; 94:609-615.
62. Müller-Lissner SA, Kamm MA, Scarpignato C, Wald A. Myths and misconceptions about
chronic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100:232-242.
63. Cummings JH. Constipation, dietary fibre and the control of large bowel function. Postgrad
Med J 1984; 60:811-819.
64. Müller-Lissner SA. Effect of wheat bran on stool weight and gastrointestinal transit time.
A meta-analysis. Br Med J 1988; 296:615-617.
65. Cummings JH. The effect of dietary fibre on fecal weight and composition. In: Spiller CA,
editor. CRC Handbook of Dietary Fibre in Human Nutrition. Ann Arbor: CRC Press, 1992:
263-349.
66. US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005;
available on: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005.
67. Brandt LJ, Prather CM, Quigley EMM, Schiller LR, Schoenfeld PS, Talley NJ. Systematic
review on the management of chronic constipation in North America. Am J Gastroenterol
2005; 100 (Suppl 1):S5-S22.
68. Ashraf W, Park F, Lof J, Quigley EMM. Effects of psyllium therapy on stools characteristics,
colon transit and anorectal function in chronic idiopathic constipation.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1995; 9:639-647.
69. Voderholzer WA, Schaltke W, Mühldorfer BE, Klauser AG, Birkner B, Müller-Lissner SA.
Clinical response to dietary fibre treatment in chronic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol
1997; 92:95-98.
70. Marteau P, Cuillerier E, Meance S, et al. Bifidobacterium animalis strain DN-173 010
shortens the colonic transit time in healthy women: a double-blind, randomised, controlled
study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002; 16:587-593.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
71. De Paula JA, Carmuega E, Weill R. Effect of the ingestion of a symbiotic yogurt on the
bowel habits of women with functional constipation. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam 2008;
38:16-25.
72. Pitkala KH, Strandberg TE, Finne-Soveri UH, Ouwehand AC, Poussa T, Salminen S.
Fermented cereal with specific Bifidobacteria normalizes bowel movements in elderly
nursing home residents. A randomized, controlled trial. J Nutr Health Aging 2007; 11:305-
311.
73. Koebnick C, Wagner I, Leitzmann P, Stern U, Zunft HJ. Probiotic beverage containing
Lactobacillus casei Shirota improves gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with chronic
constipation. Can J Gastroenterol 2003; 17:655-659.
74. Mollenbrink M, Bruckschen E. Treatment of chronic constipation with physiologic
Escherichia coli bacteria. Results of a clinical study of the effectiveness and tolerance of
microbiological therapy with E. coli Nissle 1917 strain (Mutaflor). Med Klin Munich 1994;
89:587-593.
75. Banaszkiewicz A, Szajewska H. Ineffectiveness of Lactobacillus GG as an adjunct to
lactulose for the treatment of constipation in children: a double-blind, placebo-controlled
trial. J Pediatr 2005; 146:364-369.
76. Petruzziello L, Iacopini F, Bulajic M, Shah S, Costamagna G. Review article:
uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;
23:13791391.
77. Sheth AA, Longo W, Floch MH. Diverticular disease and diverticulitis. Am J Gastroenterol
2008; 103:1550-1556.
78. Aldoori WH, Giovannucci EL, Rimm EB, Wing AL, Trichopoulos DV, Willett WC. A
prospective study of diet and the risk of symptomatic diverticular disease in men. Am J
Clin Nutr 1994; 60:757-764.
79. Aldoori WH, Giovannucci EL, Rockett HRH, Sampson L, Rimm EB, Willett WC. A prospective
study of dietary fibre types and symptomatic diverticular disease in men. J Nutr 1998;
128:714-719.
80. Painter NS, Burkitt DP. Diverticular disease of the colon. A 20th century problem. Clin
Gastroenterol 1975; 4:3-21.
81. Painter NS, Truelove SC, Adran GM, Tuckey M. Segmentation and the localization of
intraluminal pressure in the human colon, with special reference to the pathogenesis of
colonic diverticula. Gastroenterology 1968; 54 (4 Suppl):778-780.
82. West AB, Losada M. The pathology of diverticulosis coli. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004; 38 (5
Suppl):S11-S16.
83. Whitway J, Morson BC. Elastosis in diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon. Gut 1985;
26:258-266.
84. Brodribb AJ. Treatment of symptomatic diverticular disease with high-fibre diet. Lancet
1977; 1:666.
85. Ornstein MH, Littlewood ER, Baird IM, Fowler J, North WRS, Cox AG. Are fibre supplements
really necessary in diverticular disease of the colon? A controlled clinical trial. Br Med J
1981; 282:1353-1356.
86. Hodgson WJ. The placebo effect. Is it important in diverticular disease? Am J Gastroenterol
1977; 67:157-162.
Copyright © 2015 by ESPEN LLL Programme
87. Hyland JM, Taylor I. Does a high fibre diet prevent the complications of diverticular
disease? Br J Surg 1980; 67 :77-79.
88. Leahy AL, Ellis RM, Quill DS, Peel AL. High fibre diet in symptomatic diverticular disease
of the colon. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1985; 67:173-174.
89. Giaccari S, Tronci S, Falconieri M, Ferrieri A. Long-term treatment with rifaximin and
lactobacilli in post-diverticulitic stenoses of the colon. Riv Eur Sci Med Farmacol 1993;
15:29-34.
90. Fric P, Zavoral M. The effect of non-pathogenic Escherichia coli in symptomatic
uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;
15:313-315.
91. Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Giorgetti GM, Elisei W. Mesalazine and/or Lactobacillus casei in
preventing recurrence of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease of the colon. J
Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 40:312-316.