The objectives of this review on ‘leaky gut’ for clinicians are to discuss the components of the intestinal barrier, the diverse measurements of intestinal permeability, their perturbation in non-inflammatory ‘stressed states’ and the impact of treatment with dietary factors. Information on ‘healthy’ or ‘leaky’ gut in the public domain requires confirmation before endorsing dietary exclusions, replacement with non-irritating foods (such as fermented foods) or use of supplements to repair the damage. The intestinal barrier includes surface mucus, epithelial layer and immune defences. Epithelial permeability results from increased paracellular transport, apoptosis or transcellular permeability. Barrier function can be tested in vivo using orally administered probe molecules or in vitro using mucosal biopsies from humans, exposing the colonic mucosa from rats or mice or cell layers to extracts of colonic mucosa or stool from human patients. Assessment of intestinal barrier requires measurements beyond the epithelial layer. ‘Stress’ disorders such as endurance exercise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs administration, pregnancy and surfactants (such as bile acids and dietary factors such as emulsifiers) increase permeability. Dietary factors can reverse intestinal leakiness and mucosal damage in the ‘stress’ disorders. Whereas inflammatory or ulcerating intestinal diseases result in leaky gut, no such disease can be cured by simply normalising intestinal barrier function. It is still unproven that restoring barrier function can ameliorate clinical manifestations in GI or systemic diseases. Clinicians should be aware of the potential of barrier dysfunction in GI diseases and of the barrier as a target for future therapy.

Miting, early satiety, postprandial fullness, bloating, and upper abdominal pain. Management of gastroparesis should include assessment and correction of nutritional state, relief of symptoms, improvement of gastric emptying and, in diabetics, glycemic control. Patient nutritional state should be managed by oral dietary modifications. If oral intake is not adequate, then enteral nutrition via jejunostomy tube needs to be considered. Parenteral nutrition is rarely required when hydration and nutritional state cannot be maintained. Medical treatment entails use of prokinetic and antiemetic therapies. Current approved treatment options, including metoclopramide and gastric electrical stimulation (GES, approved on a humanitarian device exemption), do not adequately address clinical need. Antiemetics have not been specifically tested in gastroparesis, but they may relieve nausea and vomiting. Other medications aimed at symptom relief include unapproved medications or off-label indications, and include domperidone, erythromycin (primarily over a short term), and centrally acting antidepressants used as symptom modulators. GES may relieve symptoms, including weekly vomiting frequency, and the need for nutritional supplementation, based on open-label studies. Second-line approaches include venting gastrostomy or feeding jejunostomy; intrapyloric botulinum toxin injection was not effective in randomized controlled trials. Most of these treatments are based on open-label treatment trials and small numbers. Partial gastrectomy and pyloroplasty should be used rarely, only in carefully selected patients. Attention should be given to the development of new effective therapies for symptomatic control....

In this 12-week trial, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prucalopride, a selective, high-affinity 5-hydroxytryptamine₄ receptor agonist, in patients with severe chronic constipation. In our multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, patients with severe chronic constipation (≤2 spontaneous, complete bowel movements per week) received placebo or 2 or 4 mg of prucalopride, once daily, for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients having three or more spontaneous, complete bowel movements per week, averaged over 12 weeks. Secondary efficacy end points were derived from daily diaries and validated questionnaires completed by patients. Adverse events, clinical laboratory values, and cardiovascular effects were monitored. Efficacy was analyzed in 620 patients. The proportion of patients with three or more spontaneous, complete bowel movements per week was 30.9% of those receiving 2 mg of prucalopride and 28.4% of those receiving 4 mg of prucalopride, as compared with 12.0% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Over 12 weeks, 47.3% of patients receiving 2 mg of prucalopride and 46.6% of those receiving 4 mg of prucalopride had an increase in the number of spontaneous, complete bowel movements of one or more per week, on average, as compared with 25.8% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). All other secondary efficacy end points, including patients' satisfaction with their bowel function and treatment and their perception of the severity of their constipation symptoms, were significantly improved with the use of 2 or 4 mg of prucalopride as compared with placebo, at week 12. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were headache and abdominal pain. There were no significant cardiovascular effects of treatment. Over 12 weeks, prucalopride significantly improved bowel function and reduced the severity of symptoms in patients with severe chronic constipation. Larger and longer trials are required to further assess the risks and benefits of the use of prucalopride for chronic constipation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00483886.)

Summary: Aim : To investigate the effects of a probiotic formulation, VSL#3, on gastrointestinal transit and symptoms of patients with Rome II irritable bowel syndrome with predominant diarrhoea.Methods : Twenty‐five patients with diarrhoea‐predominant irritable bowel syndrome were randomly assigned to receive VSL#3 powder (450 billion lyophilized bacteria/day) or matching placebo twice daily for 8 weeks after a 2‐week run‐in period. Pre‐ and post‐treatment gastrointestinal transit measurements were performed in all patients. Patients recorded their bowel function and symptoms daily in a diary during the 10‐week study, which was powered to detect a 50% change in the primary colonic transit end‐point.Results : There were no significant differences in mean gastrointestinal transit measurements, bowel function scores or satisfactory global symptom relief between the two treatment groups, pre‐ or post‐therapy. Differences in abdominal bloating scores between treatments were borderline significant (P = 0.09, analysis of covariance). Further analysis revealed that abdominal bloating was reduced (P = 0.046) with VSL#3 [mean post‐ minus pre‐treatment score, − 13.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), − 2.5 to − 24.9], but not with placebo (P = 0.54) (mean post‐ minus pre‐treatment score, − 1.7; 95% CI, 7.1 to − 10.4). With the exception of changes in abdominal bloating, VSL#3 had no effect on other individual symptoms: abdominal pain, gas and urgency. All patients tolerated VSL#3 well.Conclusion : VSL#3 appears to be promising in the relief of abdominal bloating in patients with diarrhoea‐predominant irritable bowel syndrome. This is unrelated to an alteration in gastrointestinal or colonic transit.

Background & Aims Patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) could benefit from a gluten-free diet (GFD). Methods We performed a randomized controlled 4-week trial of a gluten-containing diet (GCD) or GFD in 45 patients with IBS-D; genotype analysis was performed for HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8. Twenty-two patients were placed on the GCD (11 HLA-DQ2/8 negative and 11 HLA-DQ2/8 positive) and 23 patients were placed on the GFD (12 HLA-DQ2/8 negative and 11 HLA-DQ2/8 positive). We measured bowel function daily, small-bowel (SB) and colonic transit, mucosal permeability (by lactulose and mannitol excretion), and cytokine production by peripheral blood mononuclear cells after exposure to gluten and rice. We collected rectosigmoid biopsy specimens from 28 patients, analyzed levels of messenger RNAs encoding tight junction proteins, and performed H&E staining and immunohistochemical analyses. Analysis of covariance models was used to compare data from the GCD and GFD groups. Results Subjects on the GCD had more bowel movements per day (P = .04); the GCD had a greater effect on bowel movements per day of HLA-DQ2/8–positive than HLA-DQ2/8–negative patients (P = .019). The GCD was associated with higher SB permeability (based on 0−2 h levels of mannitol and the lactulose:mannitol ratio); SB permeability was greater in HLA-DQ2/8–positive than HLA-DQ2/8–negative patients (P = .018). No significant differences in colonic permeability were observed. Patients on the GCD had a small decrease in expression of zonula occludens 1 in SB mucosa and significant decreases in expression of zonula occludens 1, claudin-1, and occludin in rectosigmoid mucosa; the effects of the GCD on expression were significantly greater in HLA-DQ2/8–positive patients. The GCD vs the GFD had no significant effects on transit or histology. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells produced higher levels of interleukin-10, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and transforming growth factor-α in response to gluten than rice (unrelated to HLA genotype). Conclusions Gluten alters bowel barrier functions in patients with IBS-D, particularly in HLA-DQ2/8–positive patients. These findings reveal a reversible mechanism for the disorder. Clinical trials.gov NCT01094041.