+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Prevalence of functional dyspepsia and its subgroups in patients with eating disorders



Prevalence of functional dyspepsia and its subgroups in patients with eating disorders



World Journal of Gastroenterology 18(32): 4379-4385



To study the prevalence of functional dyspepsia (FD) (Rome III criteria) across eating disorders (ED), obese patients, constitutional thinner and healthy volunteers. Twenty patients affected by anorexia nervosa, 6 affected by bulimia nervosa, 10 affected by ED not otherwise specified according to diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition, nine constitutional thinner subjects and, thirty-two obese patients were recruited from an outpatients clinic devoted to eating behavior disorders. Twenty-two healthy volunteers matched for age and gender were enrolled as healthy controls. All participants underwent a careful clinical examination. Demographic and anthropometric characteristics were obtained from a structured questionnaires. The presence of FD and, its subgroups, epigastric pain syndrome and postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) were diagnosed according to Rome III criteria. The intensity-frequency score of broader dyspeptic symptoms such as early satiety, epigastric fullness, epigastric pain, epigastric burning, epigastric pressure, belching, nausea and vomiting were studied by a standardized questionnaire (0-6). Analysis of variance and post-hoc Sheffè tests were used for comparisons. 90% of patients affected by anorexia nervosa, 83.3% of patients affected by bulimia nervosa, 90% of patients affected by ED not otherwise specified, 55.6% of constitutionally thin subjects and 18.2% healthy volunteers met the Postprandial Distress Syndrome Criteria (χ(2), P < 0.001). Only one bulimic patient met the epigastric pain syndrome diagnosis. Postprandial fullness intensity-frequency score was significantly higher in anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and ED not otherwise specified groups compared to the score calculated in the constitutional thinner group (4.15 ± 2.08 vs 1.44 ± 2.35, P = 0.003; 5.00 ± 2.45 vs 1.44 ± 2.35, P = 0.003; 4.10 ± 2.23 vs 1.44 ± 2.35, P = 0.002, respectively), the obese group (4.15 ± 2.08 vs 0.00 ± 0.00, P < 0.001; 5.00 ± 2.45 vs 0.00 ± 0.00, P < 0.001; 4.10 ± 2.23 vs 0.00 ± 0.00, P < 0.001, respectively) and healthy volunteers (4.15 ± 2.08 vs 0.36 ± 0.79, P < 0.001; 5.00 ± 2.45 vs 0.36 ± 0.79, P < 0.001; 4.10 ± 2.23 vs 0.36 ± 0.79, P < 0.001, respectively). Early satiety intensity-frequency score was prominent in anorectic patients compared to bulimic patients (3.85 ± 2.23 vs 1.17 ± 1.83, P = 0.015), obese patients (3.85 ± 2.23 vs 0.00 ± 0.00, P < 0.001) and healthy volunteers (3.85 ± 2.23 vs 0.05 ± 0.21, P < 0.001). Nausea and epigastric pressure were increased in bulimic and ED not otherwise specified patients. Specifically, nausea intensity-frequency-score was significantly higher in bulimia nervosa and ED not otherwise specified patients compared to anorectic patients (3.17 ± 2.56 vs 0.89 ± 1.66, P = 0.04; 2.70 ± 2.91 vs 0.89 ± 1.66, P = 0.05, respectively), constitutional thinner subjects (3.17 ± 2.56 vs 0.00 ± 0.00, P = 0.004; 2.70 ± 2.91 vs 0.00 ± 0.00, P = 0.005, respectively), obese patients (3.17 ± 2.56 vs 0.00 ± 0.00, P < 0.001; 3.17 ± 2.56 vs 0.00 ± 0.00, P < 0.001 respectively) and, healthy volunteers (3.17 ± 2.56 vs 0.17 ± 0.71, P = 0.002; 3.17 ± 2.56 vs 0.17 ± 0.71, P = 0.001, respectively). Epigastric pressure intensity-frequency score was significantly higher in bulimic and ED not otherwise specified patients compared to constitutional thin subjects (4.67 ± 2.42 vs 1.22 ± 1.72, P = 0.03; 4.20 ± 2.21 vs 1.22 ± 1.72, P = 0.03, respectively), obese patients (4.67 ± 2.42 vs 0.75 ± 1.32, P = 0.001; 4.20 ± 2.21 vs 0.75 ± 1.32, P < 0.001, respectively) and, healthy volunteers (4.67 ± 2.42 vs 0.67 ± 1.46, P = 0.001; 4.20 ± 2.21 vs 0.67 ± 1.46, P = 0.001, respectively). Vomiting was referred in 100% of bulimia nervosa patients, in 20% of ED not otherwise specified patients, in 15% of anorexia nervosa patients, in 22% of constitutional thinner subjects, and, in 5.6% healthy volunteers (χ(2), P < 0.001). PDS is common in eating disorders. Is it mandatory in outpatient gastroenterological clinics to investigate eating disorders in patients with PDS?

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 055157910

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22969202


Related references

In patients with functional dyspepsia, overlapping of dyspepsia subgroups is a marker for severity. Gastroenterology 118(4 Suppl 2 Part 2): AGA A1246, 2000

Nomenclature of dyspepsia, dyspepsia subgroups and functional dyspepsia: clarifying the concepts. Bailliere's Clinical Gastroenterology 12(3): 417-433, 1999

Smoking, alcohol, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in outpatients with functional dyspepsia and among dyspepsia subgroups. American Journal of Gastroenterology 89(4): 524-528, 1994

Discriminant value of dyspeptic symptoms and dyspepsia subgroups in functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 102(4 PART 2): A523, 1992

Do dyspepsia subgroups predict response to treatment in functional dyspepsia?. Gastroenterology 114(4 PART 2): A154, April 15, 1998

Prevalence of all relevant eating disorders in patients waiting for bariatric surgery: a comparison between patients with and without eating disorders. Eating and Weight Disorders 15(4): E247-E255, 2011

Efficacy of sulpiride and itopride in the treatment of functional dyspepsia in women with emotional and eating disorders. Polski Merkuriusz Lekarski 37(217): 39-42, 2014

An appropriate symptom questionnaire allows to identify separate subgroups among patients with chronic functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 110(4 SUPPL ): A771, 1996

Prognosis of dyspepsia among patients in general practice Dyspepsia subgroups and patient characteristics. Gastroenterology 110(4 SUPPL ): A29, 1996

Clinical classification of subgroups according to the Rome III criteria cannot be used to distinguish the associated respective pathophysiology in Japanese patients with functional dyspepsia. Internal Medicine 52(12): 1289-1293, 2014

Fluctuation in dyspepsia subgroups over time. A three-year follow-up of patients consulting general practice for dyspepsia. Digestive & Liver Disease 34(5): 332-338, 2002

A 4-year epidemiological study of typical and atypical eating disorders: preliminary evidence for subgroups of atypical eating disorders with different natural outcomes. European Eating Disorders Review 12(4): 234-239, 2004

Defining subgroups of dieting disorder patients by means of the Eating Disorders Examination (EDE). British Journal of Psychiatry 166(4): 472-474, 1995

Proton pump inhibitor versus prokinetic therapy in patients with functional dyspepsia: is therapeutic response predicted by Rome III subgroups?. Journal of Gastroenterology 46(2): 183-190, 2011