Download PDF
Z Gastroenterol 2016; 54(03): 217-225
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-106856
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Determinants and frequency of irritable bowel syndrome in a German sample

Häufigkeit des Reizdarmsyndroms und seine Determinanten in einer deutschen Stichprobe
A. Althaus   *
1   Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf and Schön Klinik Hamburg Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany
,
W. Broicher   *
1   Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf and Schön Klinik Hamburg Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany
,
P. Wittkamp
1   Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf and Schön Klinik Hamburg Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany
,
V. Andresen
2   Israelitisches Krankenhaus, Hamburg, Germany
,
A. W. Lohse
3   I. Department of Medicine, University Medical Center of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
B. Löwe
1   Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf and Schön Klinik Hamburg Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 July 2015

02 September 2015

Publication Date:
04 April 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: To date there is no study that has estimated the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in Germany according to the current Rome III criteria. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of IBS in a non-clinical German sample. Furthermore, we investigated the association of IBS with socio-demographic and psychological risk factors.

Methods: Baseline data from a prospective cohort study were analysed, including the IBS Module of the Rome III Diagnostic Questionnaires and validated psychometric scales including the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), the Big Five Inventory (BFI), the Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ-5), and the Whiteley-Index (WI-7). The study population was compared to the German general population to appraise its representativeness. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify possible risk factors associated with IBS.

Results: Between January 2011 and September 2012, 2419 persons participated (female 54.0 %, mean age 37.4 ± 14.9 years). According to the Rome III criteria, 401 participants (16.6 %) suffered from IBS. Five predictors were independently associated with IBS: previous traveller’s diarrhoea infection (OR = 1.76; 95 % CI = 1.34 to 2.31), higher somatic symptom burden (OR = 1.15; 95 % CI = 1.07 to 1.23), increased level of hypochondriasis (OR = 2.04; 95 % CI = 1.54 to 2.70), increased vulnerability to diarrhoea under stress (OR = 3.88; 95 % CI = 3.21 to 4.68) and perceived stress (OR = 1.43; 95 % CI = 1.04 to 1.99).

Conclusions: Our analyses yielded a relatively high IBS prevalence estimate, compared to studies published more than ten years ago. This might partially be explained by the fact that the time criterion of the Rome III criteria (at least 3 days/month in last 3 months) is more inclusive compared to the time criterion of the Rome II criteria (at least 12 weeks, which need not be consecutive, in the preceding 12 months).

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Die Prävalenz des Reizdarmsyndroms (RDS) in Deutschland entsprechend der aktuellen ROM-III-Kriterien wurde bislang noch nicht untersucht. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war die Einschätzung der RDS-Prävalenz in einer nicht-klinischen Stichprobe in Deutschland. Darüber hinaus wurden im Rahmen der Studie Zusammenhänge zwischen dem RDS und potenziellen sozio-demografischen und psychologischen Risikofaktoren untersucht.

Methoden: Die Baseline-Daten einer prospektiven RDS-Kohorten-Studie wurden ausgewertet. Diese beinhalteten u. a. das RDS-Modul der ROM-III-Kriterien und validierte psychometrische Skalen wie den Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), das Big Five Inventory (BFI), das Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ-5) und den Whiteley-Index (WI-7). Die Studienpopulation wurde hinsichtlich relevanter Merkmale mit der deutschen Wohnbevölkerung verglichen, um Rückschlüsse auf ihre Repräsentativität ziehen zu können. Um mögliche Risikofaktoren für das Vorliegen eines RDS zu identifizieren, wurden multiple logistische Regressionen gerechnet.

Ergebnisse: Zwischen Januar 2011 und September 2012 haben 2419 Personen an der Studie teilgenommen (Durchschnittsalter 37,4 ± 14,9 Jahre, 54 % Frauen). Entsprechend den ROM-III-Kriterien lag bei 401 Teilnehmern (16,6 %) ein RDS vor. Fünf unabhängige Prädiktoren waren mit dem Vorliegen eines RDS assoziiert: eine Erkrankung an einer Reisediarrhö in der Vergangenheit (OR = 1,76; 95 % CI = 1,34 bis 2,31), eine starke somatische Symptombelastung (OR = 1,15; 95 % CI 1,07 bis 1,23), erhöhte Hypochondrie-Neigung (OR = 2,04; 95 % CI 1,54 bis 2,70), erhöhte Vulnerabilität für Diarrhö bei Stress (OR = 3,88; 95 % CI = 3,21 bis 4,68) und das wahrgenommene Ausmaß an Stress (OR = 1,43; 95 % CI = 0,04 bis 1,99).

Schlussfolgerung: Verglichen mit anderen Studien ergaben unsere Analysen eine relativ hohe Schätzung der RDS-Prävalenz. Dies könnte teilweise daran liegen, dass die ROM-III-Kriterien weniger restriktiv als die ROM-II-Kriterien sind.

Schlüsselwörter

Darm - Colon irritabile - chronisch entzündliche Darmerkrankung - Risikofaktoren - Hypochondrie - Diarrhö

Key words

intestines - irritable bowel syndrome - chronic inflammatory bowel disease - risk factors - hypochondriasis - diarrhoea

* Both authors contributed equally.


 

  • References

  • 1 Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD et al. Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1480-1491
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Hungin AP, Whorwell PJ, Tack J et al. The prevalence, patterns and impact of irritable bowel syndrome: an international survey of 40000 subjects. Aliment Pharmacol Therap 2003; 17: 643-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Andrews EB, Eaton SC, Hollis KA et al. Prevalence and demographics of irritable bowel syndrome: results from a large web-based survey. Aliment Pharmacol Therap 2005; 22: 935-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wilson A, Longstreth GF, Knight K et al. Quality of life in managed care patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Managed care interface 2004; 17: 24-28, 34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rey E, Garcia-Alonso MO, Moreno-Ortega M et al. Determinants of quality of life in irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008; 42: 1003-1009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Longstreth GF, Wilson A, Knight K et al. Irritable bowel syndrome, health care use, and costs: a U.S. managed care perspective. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 600-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hungin AP, Chang L, Locke GR et al. Irritable bowel syndrome in the United States: prevalence, symptom patterns and impact. Aliment Pharmacol Therap 2005; 21: 1365-1375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Thompson WG. The road to rome. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1552-1556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cremonini F, Talley NJ. Irritable bowel syndrome: epidemiology, natural history, health care seeking and emerging risk factors. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2005; 34: 189-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lovell RM, Ford AC. Global prevalence of and risk factors for irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 712-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hungin AP, Whorwell PJ, Tack J et al. The prevalence, patterns and impact of irritable bowel syndrome: an international survey of 40000 subjects. Aliment Pharmacol Therap 2003; 17: 643-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Holtmann G, Goebell H, Talley NJ. Dyspepsia in consulters and non-consulters: prevalence, health-care seeking behaviour and risk factors. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 1994; 6: 917-924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Icks A, Haastert B, Enck P et al. Prevalence of functional bowel disorders and related health care seeking: a population-based study. Z Gastroenterol 2002; 40: 177-183
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Drossman DA. Introduction. The Rome Foundation and Rome III. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2007; 19: 783-786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Manning AP, Thompson WG, Heaton KW et al. Towards positive diagnosis of the irritable bowel. Br Med J 1978; 2: 653-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Thompson WG, Longstreth GF, Drossman DA et al. Functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain. Gut 1999; 45 (Suppl. 02) II43-II47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Longstreth GF. Definition and classification of irritable bowel syndrome: current consensus and controversies. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2005; 34: 173-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Saito YA, Schoenfeld P, Locke GR et al. The epidemiology of irritable bowel syndrome in North America: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1910-1915
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lovell RM, Ford AC. Effect of gender on prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 991-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ford AC, Forman D, Bailey AG et al. Irritable bowel syndrome: a 10-yr natural history of symptoms and factors that influence consultation behavior. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 2008; 103: 1229-1239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dancey CP, Taghavi M, Fox RJ. The relationship between daily stress and symptoms of irritable bowel: a time-series approach. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1998; 44: 537-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Whitehead WE, Palsson O, Jones KR. Systematic review of the comorbidity of irritable bowel syndrome with other disorders: what are the causes and implications?. Gastroenterology 2002; 122: 1140-1156
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Solmaz M, Kavuk I, Sayar K. Psychological factors in the irritable bowel syndrome. European Journal of Medical Research 2003; 8: 549-556
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Porcelli P. Psychological abnormalities in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 2004; 23: 63-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nicholl BI, Halder SL, Macfarlane GJ et al. Psychosocial risk markers for new onset irritable bowel syndrome – results of a large prospective population-based study. Pain 2008; 137: 147-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lee S, Wu J, Ma YL et al. Irritable bowel syndrome is strongly associated with generalized anxiety disorder: a community study. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2009; 30: 643-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Muris JW, Starmans R, Fijten GH et al. One-year prognosis of abdominal complaints in general practice: a prospective study of patients in whom no organic cause is found. British Journal of General Practice 1996; 46: 715-719
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Layer P, Andresen V, Pehl C et al. S3-Leitlinie Reizdarmsyndrom: Definition, Pathophysiologie, Diagnostik und Therapie. Gemeinsame Leitlinie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Verdauungs-und Stoffwechselkrankheiten (DGVS) und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurogastroenterologie und Motilität (DGNM)[Irritable Bowel Syndrome: German Consensus Guidelines on Definition, Pathophysiology and Management. German Society of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) and German Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (DGNM)]. Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie 2011; 49: 237-293
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 The Rome Foundation. Rome III – Diagnosic Questionnaires. 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med 2002; 64: 258-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kocalevent RD, Hinz A, Brahler E. Standardization of the depression screener patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) in the general population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2013; 35: 551-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Spiller RC, Humes DJ, Campbell E et al. The Patient Health Questionnaire 12 Somatic Symptom scale as a predictor of symptom severity and consulting behaviour in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and symptomatic diverticular disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32: 811-820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 606-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Löwe B, Gräfe K, Zipfel S et al. Diagnosing ICD-10 depressive episodes: superior criterion validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire. Psychother Psychosomat 2004; 73: 386-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Löwe B, Kroenke K, Herzog W et al. Measuring depression outcome with a brief self-report instrument: sensitivity to change of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). J Affect Disord 2004; 81: 61-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rief W, Nanke A, Klaiberg A et al. Base rates for panic and depression according to the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire: a population-based study. J Affect Disord 2004; 82: 271-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine 2006; 166: 1092-1097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Löwe B, Decker O, Muller S et al. Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population. Med Care 2008; 46: 266-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Fliege H, Rose M, Arck P et al. The Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) reconsidered: validation and reference values from different clinical and healthy adult samples. Psychosomat Med 2005; 67: 78-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Scholler G, Fliege H, Klapp BF. Fragebogen zu Selbstwirksamkeit, Optimismus und Pessimismus. Restrukturierung, Itemselektion und Validierung eines Instruments an Untersuchungen klinischer Stichproben. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, medizinische Psychologie 1999; 49: 275-283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Eis D, Helm D, Laußmann D et al. Berliner Studie zu umweltbezogenen Erkrankungen. Berlin: Robert Koch-Institut; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 42 John OP, Naumann LP, Soto CJ. Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Kovaleva A, Beierlein C, Kemper CJ et al. Psychometric properties of the BFI-K: a cross-validation study. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment 2013; 13: 34-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Rammstedt B, John OP. Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Entwicklung und Validierung eines ökonomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der fünf Faktoren der Persönlichkeit. Diagnostica 2005; 51: 195-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Fink P, Ewald H, Jensen J et al. Screening for somatization and hypochondriasis in primary care and neurological in-patients: a seven-item scale for hypochondriasis and somatization. J Psychosomat Res 1999; 46: 261-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Welch PG, Carleton RN, Asmundson GJ. Measuring health anxiety: moving past the dichotomous response option of the original Whiteley Index. J Anxiety Disord 2009; 23: 1002-1007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. Bevölkerungsstand nach dem Zensus 2011. Wiebaden: 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2012. Wiebaden, Germany: 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Robert Koch Institut. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes – Gesundheit in Deutschland. Berlin: 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Harrell Jr FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Statistical Medicine 1996; 15: 361-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Zhou KH, O'Malley AJ, Mauri L. Receiver-operating charcteristic for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation 2007; 654-657
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Krogsgaard LR, Engsbro AL, Bytzer P. The epidemiology of irritable bowel syndrome in Denmark. A population-based survey in adults? 50 years of age. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 2013; 48: 523-529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Lin S, Mooney PD, Kurien M et al. Prevalence, investigational pathways and diagnostic outcomes in differing irritable bowel syndrome subtypes. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2014; 26: 1176-1180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. Gender differences in the reporting of physical and somatoform symptoms. Psychosom Med 1998; 60: 150-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Anbardan SJ, Daryani NE, Fereshtehnejad SM et al. Gender role in irritable bowel syndrome: a comparison of irritable bowel syndrome module (ROME III) between male and female patients. Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2012; 18: 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Katsinelos P, Lazaraki G, Kountouras J et al. Prevalence, bowel habit subtypes and medical care-seeking behaviour of patients with irritable bowel syndrome in Northern Greece. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2009; 21: 183-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Sperber AD, Shvartzman P, Friger M et al. A comparative reappraisal of the Rome II and Rome III diagnostic criteria: are we getting closer to the 'true' prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome?. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 19: 441-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Gwee KA, Leong YL, Graham C et al. The role of psychological and biological factors in postinfective gut dysfunction. Gut 1999; 44: 400-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Locke GR, Weaver AL, Melton LJ et al. Psychosocial factors are linked to functional gastrointestinal disorders: a population based nested case-control study. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 2004; 99: 350-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Shih TH, Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field methods 2008; 20: 249-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Van Horn PS, Green KE, Martinussen M. Survey response rates and survey administration in counseling and clinical psychology a meta-analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2009; 69: 389-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Icks A, Haastert B, Enck P et al. Health-related quality of life in subjects with functional bowel disorders in Germany. Z Gastroenterol 2002; 40: 863-867
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Altayar O, Sharma V, Prokop LJ et al. Psychological therapies in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2015; 549308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Sharpe M, Peveler R, Mayou R. The psychological treatment of patients with functional somatic symptoms: a practical guide. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1992; 36: 515-529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Smith Jr GR, Rost K, Kashner TM. A trial of the effect of a standardized psychiatric consultation on health outcomes and costs in somatizing patients. Archives of General Psychiatry 1995; 52: 238-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar