• Oluwafikunayo Orekoya, John McLaughlin, Eugenia Leitao, Wendy Johns, Simon Lal, and Peter Paine.
• Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, UK fikki.orekoya@nhs.net.
• Clin Med. 2015 Jun 1; 15 (3): 252257252-7.

AbstractAlthough recognised as a cause of chronic diarrhoea for over forty years, diagnostic tests and treatments for bile acid malabsorption (BAM) remain controversial. Recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines highlighted the lack of evidence in the field, and called for further research. This retrospective study explores the BAM subtype and severity, the use and response to bile acid sequestrants (BAS) and the prevalence of abnormal colonic histology. 264 selenium-75-labelled homocholic acid conjugated taurine (SeHCAT)-tested patient records were reviewed and the severity and subtype of BAM, presence of colonic histopathology and response to BAS were recorded. 53% of patients tested had BAM, with type-2 BAM in 45% of patients with presumed irritable bowel syndrome. Colonic histological abnormalities were similar overall between patients with (29%) or without (23%) BAM (p = 0.46) and between BAM subtypes, with no significant presence of inflammatory changes. 63% of patients with BAM had a successful BAS response which showed a trend to decreased response with reduced severity. Colestyramine was unsuccessful in 44% (38/87) and 45% of these (17/38) were related to medication intolerance, despite a positive SeHCAT. 47% (7/15) of colestyramine failures had a successful colesevelam response. No patient reported colesevelam intolerance. Quantifying severity of BAM appears to be useful in predicting BAS response. Colesevelam was better tolerated than colestyramine and showed some efficacy in colestyramine failures. Colestyramine failure should not be used to exclude BAM. Colonic histology is of no relevance.© Royal College of Physicians 2015. All rights reserved.

38 keywords...

hide…