Prospective comparison of diagnostic tests for bile acid diarrhoea
- PMID: 37794830
- DOI: 10.1111/apt.17739
Prospective comparison of diagnostic tests for bile acid diarrhoea
Abstract
Background: Bile acid diarrhoea is often missed because gold standard nuclear medicine tauroselcholic [75-Se] acid (SeHCAT) testing has limited availability. Empirical treatment effect has unknown diagnostic performance, whereas plasma 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4) is inexpensive but lacks sensitivity.
Aims: To determine diagnostic characteristics of empirical treatment and explore improvements in diagnostics with potential better availability than SeHCAT.
Methods: This diagnostic accuracy study was part of a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of colesevelam. Consecutive patients with chronic diarrhoea attending SeHCAT had blood and stool sampled. Key thresholds were C4 > 46 ng/mL and SeHCAT retention ≤10%. A questionnaire recorded patient-reported empirical treatment effect. We analysed receiver operating characteristics and explored machine learning applied logistic regression and decision tree modelling with internal validation.
Results: Ninety-six (38%) of 251 patients had SeHCAT retention ≤10%. The effect of empirical treatment assessed with test results for bile acid studies blinded had 63% (95% confidence interval 44%-79%) sensitivity and 65% (47%-80%) specificity; C4 > 46 ng/mL had 47% (37%-57%) and 92% (87%-96%), respectively. A decision tree combining C4 ≥ 31 ng/mL with ≥1.1 daily watery stools (Bristol type 6 and 7) had 70% (51%-85%) sensitivity and 95% (83%-99%) specificity. The logistic regression model, including C4, the sum of measured stool bile acids and daily watery stools, had 77% (58%-90%) sensitivity and 93% (80%-98%) specificity.
Conclusions: Diagnosis of bile acid diarrhoea using empirical treatment was inadequate. Exploration suggested considerable improvements in the sensitivity of C4-based testing, offering potential widely available diagnostics. Further validation is warranted.
Clinicaltrials: gov: NCT03876717.
© 2023 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Comment in
-
Editorial: Bile acid diarrhoea - simplified clinico-biochemical diagnosis.Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2024 Jan;59(1):126-127. doi: 10.1111/apt.17740. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2024. PMID: 38085935 No abstract available.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Walters JR. Defining primary bile acid diarrhea: making the diagnosis and recognizing the disorder. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;4(5):561-567.
-
- Camilleri M. Bile acid diarrhea: prevalence, pathogenesis, and therapy. Gut Liver. 2015;9(3):332-339.
-
- Bannaga A, Kelman L, O'Connor M, Pitchford C, Walters JR, Arasaradnam RP. How bad is bile acid diarrhoea: an online survey of patient-reported symptoms and outcomes. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2017;4(1):e000116.
-
- Mekjian HS, Phillips SF, Hofmann AF. Colonic secretion of water and electrolytes induced by bile acids: perfusion studies in man. J Clin Invest. 1971;50(8):1569-1577.
-
- Hegyi P, Maleth J, Walters JR, Hofmann AF, Keely SJ. Guts and gall: bile acids in regulation of intestinal epithelial function in health and disease. Physiol Rev. 2018;98(4):1983-2023.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
Grants and funding
- 10-002035/Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond
- 2017-771/Axel Muusfeldts Fond
- 2017-1064/93/Civilingeniør H.C. Bechgaard og hustru Ella Mary Bechgaards Fond
- NNF19OC0055844/Fabrikant Vilhelm Pedersen og hustrus mindelegat by recommendation from the Novo Nordisk Foundation
- 18-L-0394/A.P. Møller og Hustru and Chastine Mc-Kinney Møller Fond til almene Formaal
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous