INTRODUCTION: In the treatment of upper GI endoscopy-negative patients with heartburn and epigastric pain or burning, antacids, antireflux agents, and mucosal protective agents are widely used, alone or as add-on treatment, to increase response to proton-pump inhibitors, which are not indicated in infancy and pregnancy and account for significant cost expenditure. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter trial assessing the efficacy and safety of mucosal protective agent Poliprotect (neoBianacid, Sansepolcro, Italy) vs omeprazole in the relief of heartburn and epigastric pain/burning, 275 endoscopy-negative outpatients were given a 4-week treatment with omeprazole (20 mg q.d.) or Poliprotect (5 times a day for the initial 2 weeks and on demand thereafter), followed by an open-label 4-week treatment period with Poliprotect on-demand. Gut microbiota change was assessed. RESULTS: A 2-week treatment with Poliprotect proved noninferior to omeprazole for symptom relief (between-group difference in the change in visual analog scale symptom score: [mean, 95% confidence interval] −5.4, −9.9 to −0.1; −6.2, −10.8 to −1.6; intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations, respectively). Poliprotect's benefit remained unaltered after shifting to on-demand intake, with no gut microbiota variation. The initial benefit of omeprazole was maintained against significantly higher use of rescue medicine sachets (mean, 95% confidence interval: Poliprotect 3.9, 2.8–5.0; omeprazole 8.2, 4.8–11.6) and associated with an increased abundance of oral cavity genera in the intestinal microbiota. No relevant adverse events were reported in either treatment arm. DISCUSSION: Poliprotect proved noninferior to standard-dose omeprazole in symptomatic patients with heartburn/epigastric burning without erosive esophagitis and gastroduodenal lesions. Gut microbiota was not affected by Poliprotect treatment. The study is registered in Clinicaltrial.gov (NCT03238534) and the EudraCT database (2015-005216-15).

The practice of recto-colonic water irrigation to treat constipation has been used since ancient times with different, uncontrolled, and variably performing methods which have been considered interchangeably all alike. The use of better-performing devices with a standardized methodology is relatively recent, and the term Trans Anal Irrigation (TAI) defines a methodology performed with devices able to control the timing, volume, and pressure of the water introduced into the rectum and colon utilizing a catheter or a cone through the anus. Such practice has been implemented with favorable responses in patients with refractory chronic constipation secondary to neurological diseases. However, since the role of Trans Anal Irrigation as a therapeutic aid in chronic functional constipation and functional evacuation disorders is not yet fully clarified and standardized, a group of clinical investigators with recognized expertise in these clinical conditions intends to clarify the elements that characterize a TAI procedure that can benefit patients with functional constipation and functional defecation disorders defined according to the lastly updated Rome Diagnostic Criteria. Finally, the paper deals with adherence and practical implementation of TAI.

Background: Chronic constipation (CC) is one of the most common disorders of gut–brain interaction (DGBI). The management of CC requires specific skills due to its complex and multifactorial pathophysiology and its multistep treatment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the availability and the use of diagnostic tools for CC in Italy and the therapeutic management of CC by Italian gastroenterologists (GEs). Methods: A survey was conducted during the 28th meeting of the Italian Federation of Digestive Disease Societies (FISMAD; Rome, Italy, 11–14 May 2022). The survey explored the presence of a clinic dedicated to DGBIs, the availability and the use of specific diagnostic tools, the routine use of digital rectal examination (DRE), and the therapeutic approach to CC by Italian GEs. Results: The survey was taken by 236 GEs. The most significant results were that 42% of respondents had a clinic dedicated to DGBI in their institute; DRE was regularly performed by 56.8% of GEs when evaluating a CC patient; young GEs (≤40 years) performed DRE less frequently than older ones (p < 0.001); anorectal manometry was available to 44.3% of GEs; balloon expulsion test (BET) was available to 19.1% of GEs; GEs with a clinic dedicated to DGBI had more frequent access to anorectal physiology testing (p < 0.001); diet and lifestyle advice were the most frequently prescribed treatments; and fiber and macrogol were the second and third most prescribed treatments, respectively. Conclusions: The survey provides an interesting picture of CC management by Italian GEs. The results are in line with previous data collected about 10 years ago among Italian GEs (“CHRO.CO.DI.T.E study”); DRE is still rarely performed by Italian GEs (particularly by young GEs). The availability of anorectal physiology testing is still limited, and BET, which could be easily performed in everyday clinical settings, is rarely performed. Lifestyle suggestions, macrogol and fiber are the preferred treatment, as recommended by all guidelines. These results will be useful to identify as yet unmet educational needs and critical issues to improve CC management.

Chronic constipation (CC) is one of the most common disorders of gut–brain interaction, affecting more than 11% of adults in Western countries, with higher prevalence in women and in the elderly. Despite its significant impact on quality of life, most patients self-manage their symptoms, while only a minority seek medical attention from general practitioners (GPs) or specialists. Proper assessment not only often requires a multidimensional approach but also accurate diagnostic and therapeutic pathways that define the exact role of GPs and specialists. This paper describes a comprehensive Diagnostic–Therapeutic Care Pathway (DTCP) for CC, focusing on the full spectrum of diagnostic and therapeutic methodologies required for accurate patient assessment and management. The pathway involves a primary care physician intervention phase, responsible for first-line diagnostic and therapeutic management and evaluation using objective parameters, as well as reassessment at appropriate time points to identify patients requiring further specialist evaluation. Advanced diagnostic methodologies are described as being performed in specialized gastroenterology or neurogastroenterology settings. These include colonic transit studies with radiopaque markers, high-resolution anorectal manometry, balloon expulsion testing, magnetic resonance imaging or conventional defecography, ultrasonography, and neurophysiological assessments such as anal sphincter EMG and pudendal nerve latency testing.