Eating disorders (ED) are frequently associated with a wide range of psychiatric or somatic comorbidities. The most relevant ED are anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge eating disorders (BED). Patients with ED exhibit both upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Evidence of alterations throughout the GI tract in ED will be analyzed given the role of the GI tract in food intake and its regulation. It remains a matter of debate whether GI disorders are inherent manifestations of ED or the results of malnutrition occurring from ED. Moreover, recent clinical studies have highlighted the growing role of intestinal microbiota in the pathogenesis of ED, making it possible to hypothesize a modulation of intestinal microbiota as a co-adjuvant to standard therapy. The aim of this review is to analyze the link between ED and GI diseases and to present, where known, the potential key factors underlying these conditions. Conclusions: The presence of GI disorders should be investigated in patients with ED. Screening for ED should also be encouraged in individuals seeking treatment for unexplained GI complaints to better address therapeutic issues that surround these difficult medical conditions.

Background Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an effective and safe technique for nonlifting colorectal lesions. Technical issues or failures with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system are reported, but there are no detailed data. The aim of our study was to quantify and classify FTRD technical failures. Methods We performed a retrospective study involving 17 Italian centers with experience in advanced resection techniques and the required devices. Each center shared and classified all prospectively collected consecutive failures during colorectal EFTR using the FTRD from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was the technical failure rate and their classification; secondary outcomes included subsequent management, clinical success, and complications. Results Included lesions were mainly recurrent (52 %), with a mean (SD) dimension of 18.4 (7.5) mm. Among 750 EFTRs, failures occurred in 77 patients (35 women; mean [SD] age 69.4 [8.9] years). A classification was proposed: type I, snare noncutting (53 %); type II, clip misdeployment (31 %); and type III, cap misplacement (16 %). Among endoscopic treatments completed, rescue endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 57 patients (74 %), allowing en bloc and R0 resection in 71 % and 64 %, respectively. The overall adverse event rate was 27.3 %. Pooled estimates for the rates of failure, complications, and rescue endoscopic therapy were similar for low and high volume centers (P = 0.08, P = 0.70, and P = 0.71, respectively). Conclusions Colorectal EFTR with the FTRD is a challenging technique with a non-negligible rate of technical failure and complications. Experience in rescue resection techniques and multidisciplinary management are mandatory in this setting.

Introduction: Celiac disease (CeD) diagnosis has worldwide shared protocols. Conversely, follow-up of patients is still an object of study. Gluten immunogenic peptide detection in the urine (GIP) appears to be a new and efficient method for dietary gluten control of patients. The present study aims to assess the clinical usefulness of the GIP point-of-care urine test in the follow-up of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with CeD before and during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy. Methods: Thirty adult CeD patients on a gluten-free diet (GFD) were enrolled before and during the COVID-19 lockdown through follow-up visits or remote consultation. Patients underwent anthropometrical evaluation, dietetic interview, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Then, two groups were formed: symptomatic and worried about gluten contamination. Each patient received 5 GIP point-of-care tests to perform a maximum of 5 times in the following 5 weeks in case of symptoms or anxiety state due to hypothesized gluten contamination. Results: Sixteen symptomatic patients and 14 patients with concerns related to gluten contamination were included. There were no differences in age, BMI, compliance to GFD and GIP positive tests between the two groups. Worried group showed a borderline higher level of anxiety than symptomatic group (p = 0.06), with a significant minor percentage of patients reporting “no or low anxiety” (14.3% vs 50% p = 0.03). The symptomatic patients showed a higher rate of diarrhea than worried group (25% vs 0%, p = 0.04). Gluten in urine samples was globally found in 8 out of 30 cases (26.6%). Conclusion: The GIP test is a tool that can be used as a point of care test to assess adequate compliance with GFD and reassure symptomatic CeD patients from the feeling of anxiety for gluten contamination, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anhedonia and functional dyspepsia in obese patients: Relationship with binge eating behaviour

Bariatric surgery (BS) is a pillar for the treatment of morbid obesity and its related comorbidities. However, it might be associated with long-term deficiencies and absorption issues. Adherence to...