페퍼민트 오일 (IBS)

AIM: Biophenol-rich nutraceuticals may be an adjuvant treatment for Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of biophenol-rich nutraceutical supplementation on CD, UC, SUDD, and IBS on gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS), quality of life (QoL), inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers, and adverse events compared to usual care or placebo. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched for randomised controlled trials until 27 April 2020. Outcomes were GIS, inflammatory and oxidative stress markers, QoL, and adverse events. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE were used to appraise studies. Data were pooled using Revman. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials in CD, UC, and IBS patients were included. Compared with placebo, biophenol-rich nutraceuticals improved GIS (SMD: 0.43 [95%CI: 0.22, 0.63]; GRADE: very low) in UC, CD, and IBS participants. In UC and CD participants, biophenol-rich nutraceuticals improved CRP by 1.6 mg/L [95%CI:0.08, 3.11; GRADE: low], malondialdehyde by 1 mmol/L [95%CI:0.55, 1.38; GRADE: low]; but only resveratrol improved QoL (SMD: -0.84 [95%CI: -1.24, -0.44; GRADE: high). Resveratrol (for UC and CD participants) and peppermint oil (for IBS participants) had greater certainty in the evidence for improving GIS and QoL (GRADE: moderate to high). There was no effect on adverse events (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Biophenol-rich nutraceuticals may be an effective and safe adjuvant treatment for the management of CD, UC, and IBS; with higher certainty of evidence for resveratrol for UC and CD and peppermint oil for IBS. © 2021 The Authors. Nutrition & Dietetics published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Dietitians Australia.

BACKGROUND: Numerous meta-analyses have recently assessed the overall clinical benefit of single therapy options and groups of therapies in the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). By large, this should enable physicians to select from a number of therapy options available. METHODS: We entered dichotomous outcome data from 121 IBS trials published over the last 35 years with different groups and subgroups of drugs (antispasmodics, motility-affecting agents, antidepressants, peppermint oil), dietary interventions (bran, probiotics), and psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral, psychodynamic, hypnotherapy, relaxation techniques) into meta-analytic tools and estimate the overall efficacy (odds ratio, number needed to treat). RESULTS: Highest efficacy is currently found for peppermint oil, followed by psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological interventions and probiotics. Traditional antispasmodic therapy has a moderate efficacy, whereas the list of (partially failed or cancelled) motility affecting drugs yielded weak clinical results, and therapies by bran and fibers are of no value in IBS. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based therapy in IBS provides a number of effective treatment options beyond the fact that many novel compounds under development have failed to reach the market. An algorithm for clinical therapy decision is proposed.

BACKGROUND: Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent, chronic gastrointestinal disorder that imposes a substantial socioeconomic burden. Peppermint oil is a frequently used treatment for IBS, but evidence about cost-effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of small-intestinal release peppermint oil versus placebo in IBS patients. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial, cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a societal perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as (1) incremental costs per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY), and (2) incremental costs per successfully treated patient, that is per abdominal pain responder (according to FDA definitions), both after an eight-week treatment period with placebo versus peppermint oil. Cost-utility and uncertainty were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The analysis comprised 126 patients (N = 64 placebo, N = 62 small-intestinal release peppermint oil). Peppermint oil was a dominant treatment compared to placebo in 46% of bootstrap replications. Peppermint oil was also more effective but at higher cost in 31% of replications. The net-benefit acceptability curve showed that peppermint oil has a 56% probability of being cost-effective at a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of €10.000/QALY. Peppermint oil was also a dominant treatment per additional successfully treated patient according to FDA definitions, that is in 51% of replications. In this case, the acceptability curve showed an 89% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with IBS, small-intestinal release peppermint oil appears to be a cost-effective treatment although there is uncertainty surrounding the ICER. When using abdominal pain responder as outcome measure for the ICER, peppermint oil has a high probability of being cost-effective. The use of peppermint oil, which is a low-cost treatment, can be justified by the modest QALY gains and slightly higher proportion of abdominal pain responders. More research and long-term data are necessary to confirm the cost-effectiveness of peppe

INTRODUCTION: Peppermint oil is often used to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS); however, the overall quality of previous studies is low, and findings have been heterogeneous. This study aimed to compare the effects of peppermint oil vs placebo in relieving IBS symptoms. METHODS: In a 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at a single academic center in the United States, individuals diagnosed with IBS (Rome IV criteria), with moderate to severe symptoms based on the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS score ≥175), were randomized to enteric-coated peppermint oil 180 mg 3 times daily vs placebo in a 1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was mean change in IBS-SSS scores from baseline to 6-week endpoint. RESULTS: A modified intent-to-treat analysis revealed that there were substantial mean improvements from baseline to 6-week endpoint in the main outcome measure (IBS-SSS) for both peppermint oil (90.8, SD = 75.3) and placebo (100.3, SD = 99.6). Although the peppermint oil group reported numerically lower improvement than the placebo group, the effect size was small (d = -0.11), and the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.97). Similarly, both groups reported substantial improvements on the secondary endpoints; but again, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups on any of the secondary measures. Sensitivity analyses using multiple imputation to replace missing data produced similar results and revealed no significant differences between peppermint oil and placebo on any outcome measure. DISCUSSION: Peppermint oil and placebo both showed clinically meaningful improvement in IBS symptoms. However, there were no significant differences between the groups. Further large, rigorous trials are needed to evaluate the role of peppermint oil for the treatment of IBS.

CONTEXT: There is still debate regarding the effect of nutritional interventions in improving irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to examine the evidence certainty and validity of all existing meta-analyses of intervention trials on nutritional interventions in patients with IBS. DATA SOURCES: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science were reviewed until June 2023. DATA EXTRACTION: Meta-analyses assessing the impacts of nutritional interventions in adults with IBS were entered. Effect sizes of nutritional interventions were recalculated by applying a random-effects model. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was implemented to determine evidence certainty. RESULTS: A total of 175 trials in 58 meta-analyses were entered describing the effects of 11 nutritional interventions on IBS-related outcomes. Nutritional interventions had beneficial effects on some IBS-related outcomes. For instance, soluble fiber, peppermint oil, and aloe vera improved IBS symptoms, and vitamin D3 and curcumin improved IBS symptom severity. Tongxieyaofang improved abdominal pain severity and stool frequency. Nevertheless, these outcomes have mainly shown small effects and low to very low evidence certainty. With regard to abdominal pain after probiotic supplementation (relative risk [RR]: 4.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.36, 6.92; GRADE = moderate) and IBS symptoms after a low-fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAP) diet (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.93; GRADE = moderate), there was evidence that probiotics and a low-FODMAP diet can confer clinical and favorable effects. CONCLUSION: The current review does not support nutritional interventions for improving IBS symptoms. With regard to probiotics and a low-FODMAP diet, considering limitations like short-term study duration, there was an influential clinical impact. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023429991. © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Life Sciences Institute. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review summarizes published data on Menthacarin, the proprietary combination of peppermint oil and caraway oil, in the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Efficacy was assessed by meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the manufacturer's information system for clinical studies investigating the safety and efficacy of Menthacarin. Efficacy analyses included change from baseline of epigastric pain and general improvement of the patients' condition. RESULTS: Five randomized trials involving 580 patients were found, demonstrating significant effects of Menthacarin on symptoms of functional dyspepsia (FD) compared to placebo or similar effects compared to a reference drug. Seven other studies reported favorable results on therapeutic application in FD patients with concomitant Helicobacter pylori infection, in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and on tolerability in FD patients from 12 years of age. Three trials in FD with 249 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. Results demonstrate a significant reduction in pain intensity (standardized mean difference: 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-1.21) and in item 2 of the Clinical Global Impression Scale (risk ratio: 2.65; 95% CI: 1.81-3.87) for Menthacarin. CONCLUSIONS: Menthacarin was shown to be effective and safe for the treatment of FD and represents a promising option for symptoms of IBS. © 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common disorders of gut-brain interaction, with a complex pathophysiology. Antispasmodics are prescribed as first-line therapy because of their action on gut dysmotility. In this regard, peppermint oil also has antispasmodic properties. AIM: To update our previous meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of peppermint oil, particularly as recent studies have cast doubt on its role in the treatment of IBS METHODS: We searched the medical literature up to 2nd April 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of peppermint oil in IBS. Efficacy and safety were judged using dichotomous assessments of effect on global IBS symptoms or abdominal pain, and occurrence of any adverse event or of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Data were pooled using a random effects model, with efficacy and safety reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified 10 eligible RCTs (1030 patients). Peppermint oil was more efficacious than placebo for global IBS symptoms (RR of not improving = 0.65; 95% CI 0.43-0.98, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4; 95% CI 2.5-71), and abdominal pain (RR of abdominal pain not improving = 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.93, NNT = 7; 95% CI 4-24). Adverse event rates were significantly higher with peppermint oil (RR of any adverse event = 1.57; 95% CI 1.04-2.37). CONCLUSIONS: Peppermint oil was superior to placebo for the treatment of IBS, but adverse events were more frequent, and quality of evidence was very low. Adequately powered RCTs of peppermint oil as first-line treatment for IBS are needed. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PURPOSE: Taste receptors are expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract. The activation of post-oral taste receptors using tastants could provide a non-invasive treatment option in combating the obesity epidemic. The aim of this review was to examine the effect of post-oral delivery of non-caloric tastants on eating behavior reflected by primary outcome energy intake and secondary outcomes GI symptoms and perceptions and potential underlying mechanisms. This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases was performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in the PROSPERO database on 26 February 2020 (ID: CRD42020171182). Two researchers independently screened 11,912 articles and extracted information from 19 articles. If at least two studies investigated the effect of the same taste compound on primary outcome energy intake, a meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled effect sizes. RESULTS: Nineteen papers including healthy volunteers were included. In the 19 papers analyzed, effects of various tastants were investigated in healthy volunteers. Most extensively investigated were bitter tastants. The meta-analysis of effects of bitter tastants showed a significant reduction in energy intake of 54.62 kcal (95% CI - 78.54 to - 30.69, p = 0.0014). CONCLUSIONS: Bitter stimuli are most potent to influence eating behavior. Energy intake decreased after post-oral delivery of bitter tastants. This highlights the potential of a preventive role of bitter tastants in battling the obesity epidemic. © 2021. The Author(s).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of Western herbal medicines in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). DESIGN: A computer-based search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, GreenFILE, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. A hand-search of the bibliographies of relevant papers and previous meta-analyses and reviews was also undertaken. Trials were included in the review if they were double-blind and placebo-controlled investigating the effects of Western herbal medicines on IBS-related symptoms or quality of life. There were no language restrictions. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. For herbal medicines where there was more than 1 trial of similar design, data were synthesised using relative risk of symptoms improving using the random effects model. RESULTS: Thirty-three trials were identified that met all eligibility criteria. Seventeen of these evaluated peppermint essential oil, fifteen other Western herbal medicines, and one trial evaluated peppermint oil in one arm and aniseed essential oil in the other arm. Eighteen different herbal preparations were evaluated in these trials. Data suggests that a number of Western herbal medicines may provide relief of IBS symptoms. Meta-analyses suggest that peppermint essential oil is both efficacious and well-tolerated in the short-term management of IBS. Aloe vera and asafoetida also demonstrated efficacy in reducing global IBS symptoms in meta-analyses. The herbal formulas STW 5, STW 5-II and Carmint, along with Ferula assa-foetida, Pimpenella anisum oil, the combination of Curcumin and Foeniculum vulgare oil, and the blend of Schinopsis lorentzii, Aesculus hippocastanum, and peppermint essential oil also demonstrated efficacy in rigorously-designed clinical trials. CONCLUSION: A number of Western herbal medicines show promise in the treatment of IBS. With the exception of peppermint essential oil, Aloe vera, and asafoetida, however, none of the positive trials have been replicated. This lack of replication limits the capacity to make definitive statements of efficacy for these herbal medicines.

BACKGROUND: Although novel therapies for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) continue to be developed, many doctors rely on more established, traditional therapies as first-line or second-line treatment options. These therapies include soluble fibre (eg, ispaghula husk), antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, and gut-brain neuromodulators (including tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or α-2-δ calcium channel subunit ligands). However, the relative efficacy of traditional treatments in patients with IBS is unclear because there have been few head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy of traditional therapies in patients with IBS to help inform clinical decisions. METHODS: For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to week 2 of August 2019; ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials or supplementary data published up to Aug 18, 2019; and gastroenterology conference proceedings for study abstracts published between 2001 and Aug 18, 2019. We included RCTs that compared any of these treatments with each other (head-to-head trials) or with placebo, in which the efficacy of soluble fibre, antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, or gut-brain neuromodulators was assessed in adults (aged at least 18 years) with IBS of any subtype after 4-12 weeks of treatment. Only RCTs reporting a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, in terms of either improvement in global IBS symptoms or improvement in abdominal pain, were included. The efficacy and safety of all treatments were reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested, and treatments were ranked according to their P-score. FINDINGS: Our search identified 5863 references, of which 81 were screened for eligibility. 51 RCTs with data from 4644 patients were eligible for inclusion in our analysis, but only 13 of these trials were at low risk of bias. Based on an endpoint of failure to achieve improvement in global IBS symptoms at 4-12 weeks, peppermint oil capsules w

BACKGROUND: Peppermint oil (PO) has intrinsic properties that may benefit patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms. The study objective was to determine the effect of peppermint oil in the treatment of the IBS. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE (Ovid), and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PO for IBS. We appraised the eligible studies by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We performed random-effects meta-analysis on primary outcomes including global improvement in IBS symptoms and abdominal pain. A PRISMA-compliant study protocol is registered in PROSPERO Register [2016, CRD42016050917]. RESULTS: Twelve randomized trials with 835 patients were included. For global symptom improvement, the risk ratio (RR) from seven RCTs for the effect of PO (n = 253) versus placebo (n = 254) on global symptoms was 2.39 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.93, 2.97], I2 = 0%, z = 7.93 (p < 0.00001). Regarding abdominal pain, the RR from six RCTs for the effect of PO (n = 278) versus placebo (n = 278) was 1.78 [95% CI: 1.43, 2.20], I2 = 0%, z = 5.23 (p < 0.00001). Overall, there were no differences in the reported adverse effects: PO (32 events, 344 total, 9.3%) versus placebo (20 events, 327 total, 6.1%) for eight RCTs; RR 1.40 [95% CI: 0.87, 2.26] I2 = 0%, z = 1.39 (p = 0.16). The number needed to treat with PO to prevent one patient from having persistent symptoms was three for global symptoms and four for abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: In the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date, PO was shown to be a safe and effective therapy for pain and global symptoms in adults with IBS.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional dyspepsia (FD) are common functional gastrointestinal disorders with overlapping symptoms. Effectiveness and safety of Menthacarin (Menthacarin® is the active ingredient of the product Carmenthin® [Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG, Karlsruhe, Germany]) in FD treatment were already demonstrated. We assessed the effectiveness of Menthacarin in reducing concomitant IBS-associated symptoms in FD patients. A systematic search to identify eligible double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating Menthacarin in FD patients and focusing on IBS-associated symptoms was performed. Three out of five identified RCTs included a total of 111 eligible subjects, which allowed for summary statistics and inclusion into subgroup analysis for FD patients with IBS-associated symptoms. With pain intensity values decreasing by 50-75% on average during 28 days of treatment in patients with accompanying IBS, the subgroup analysis indicates beneficial treatment effects of Menthacarin that are similar to those found for FD patients in the primary analyses. The reduction of IBS-associated symptoms in FD patients suggests Menthacarin as a treatment option for IBS patients. Das Reizdarmsyndrom (RDS) und die funktionelle Dyspepsie (FD) sind verbreitete funktionelle gastrointestinale Beschwerden mit überlappenden Symptomen. Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit von Menthacarin (Menthacarin® ist der Wirkstoff des Produkts Carmenthin® [Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG, Karlsruhe, Germany]) wurden in der Behandlung der FD bereits gezeigt. Gegenstand der vorliegenden Untersuchung war die Wirksamkeit von Menthacarin in der Behandlung IBS-typischer Begleitsymptome bei FD-Patienten. Zur Auffindung geeigneter doppelblinder randomisierter kontrollierter Studien (RCT) über die Anwendung von Menthacarin bei FD-Patienten mit Fokus auf das Auftreten IBS-typischer Symptome wurde eine systematische Literatursuche durchgeführt. Dabei fanden sich 5 entsprechende RCT. In 3 davon wurde eine Gruppe von insgesamt 111 geeigneten Patienten beschrieben. Die daraus gewonnenen Daten ermöglichten die Erstellung zusammenfassender Statistiken und die Durchführung einer S

Update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD003017. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003017.pub2. This Review is being updated and replaced following the publication of a new Protocol (Martin AE, Newlove‐Delgado TV, Abbott RA, Bethel A, Thompson‐Coon J, Nikolaou v, Logan S. Pharmacological interventions for recurrent abdominal pain in childhood (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD010973. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010973). It will remain withdrawn when the new Review is published. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.