Distinguishing between functional dyspepsia and gastroparesis: Does it matter?

Case study

HM is a 34 year old woman sent for a third opinion in gastroenterology. Her symptoms include near daily nausea, epigastric fullness, early satiety and bloating. Symptoms started two years ago after she, and the rest of the family, all developed a severe gastroenteritis. She was well before that without any significant medical, surgical, family or psychological history. Initial symptoms included daily nausea and vomiting with significant epigastric pain and early satiety. Vomiting has slowly resolved with time and her abdominal pain has transitioned to symptoms of epigastric fullness and burning. She continues to have symptoms of early satiety. Her weight has remained stable during this period. Eighteen months ago she underwent a battery of laboratory tests (complete blood count (CBC), liver chemistries, C-reactive protein (CRP), thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), anti-nuclear antibody), upper endoscopy and an abdominal ultrasound. All of these were normal, including random duodenal and gastric biopsies. She was treated with twice daily ondansetron without benefit. She was then referred to a local gastroenterologist for further evaluation. An upper endoscopy, with duodenal and gastric biopsies, was repeated and was normal. A 4 hour gastric emptying scan using a standardized meal revealed 83% emptying at 4 hours (normal≥85% emptying at 4 hours). The patient was diagnosed with idiopathic gastroparesis and started on metoclopramide; however, 10 mg taken by mouth three times daily made her anxious and “jittery.” She was then started on a liquid form of erythromycin but this caused stomach cramps and did not improve any of her GI symptoms. Domperidone was recommended, but her insurance company would not approve it and she could not afford the out-of-pocket costs. Her local GI provider told her there were no other options available so she sought out a second opinion from another gastroenterologist to discuss other treatment options. A repeat abdominal ultrasound was normal, as were repeat laboratory studies (CBC, liver chemistries, TSH, CRP). A second 4-hoursolid phase GES was read as normal as it demonstrated 86% emptying at 4 hours (normal≥85% emptying at 4 hours). The patient was told that she has functional dyspepsia and was started on a daily proton pump inhibitor (PPI). After 8 weeks she did not notice any improvement in symptoms. She returned to her PCP asking for advice, as she was confused by the two diagnoses. She has done some research and comes in with a list of questions. What is my diagnosis? Why did I develop my symptoms? Do I need any other tests? What is the natural history of my disease? What can be done to improve my symptoms?

Introduction

Functional dyspepsia is the most common sensorimotor disorder of the upper gastrointestinal tract; gastroparesis is the second most common disorder . Apart from gastroesophageal reflux disease, these two upper gastrointestinal disorders are some of the most frequent reasons patients are referred to a gastroenterologist . Historically, these two disorders have been thought of as completely separate disorders with regard to etiology, pathophysiology, symptom expression and diagnosis. Health care providers have been taught that patients should be diagnosed with either functional dyspepsia (FD) or gastroparesis (GP) based on symptoms of epigastric pain, early satiety, nausea, vomiting and bloating, and that the treatment for these two disorders was distinct. However, research over the last decade has shown that there is significant overlap in these two sensorimotor disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract . These disorders frequently cause chronic symptoms that are disabling to many patients. Both disorders dramatically reduce patients’ quality of life and impose a significant negative impact to the health care system. At present, the treatment for both disorders remains suboptimal. In the sections that follow we will review the epidemiology, etiology, pathophysiology and diagnosis of these two disorders, highlighting important similarities and differences. Treatment options will be briefly reviewed, although the reader is referred to chapter 23, chapter 24, chapter 25, chapter 26, chapter 27, chapter 28, chapter 29, chapter 30, chapter 31 for a comprehensive review of treatment options for gastroparesis.

Definitions

Patients can be diagnosed with FD using the Rome IV criteria . Functional dyspepsia is defined by symptoms of dyspepsia that have been present for at least 6 months without evidence of an underlying organic disorder to explain them (see Table 36.1 ). In the last two versions of the Rome criteria, FD has been categorized into two distinct subtypes: postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) and epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) (see Fig. 36.1 ). Symptoms of functional dyspepsia (FD) are relatively non-specific and include epigastric pain or burning, postprandial fullness, early satiety, and in some studies, other symptoms including postprandial nausea and upper abdominal bloating (see Table 36.2 ).

Gastroparesis is defined using a combination of subjective symptoms and objective measures . First, patients should report symptoms thought to represent a delay in gastric emptying. These symptoms, which are relatively non-specific, include epigastric pain, nausea, vomiting, early satiety, bloating and weight loss . Second, a mechanical obstruction should be ruled out; this is typically performed using upper endoscopy, although a careful upper gastrointestinal series with small bowel follow-through is sufficient for patients without ready access to upper endoscopy. Third, a delay in gastric emptying needs to be documented. The 4-hour solid phase scintigraphic emptying scan is considered the most valid method to objectively measure gastric emptying .

In summary, the current definitions of FD and GP highlight their many similarities. The considerable overlap in symptom expression was recently demonstrated in a prospective study of FD patients meeting Rome III criteria . Using the gastroparesis cardinal symptom index (GCSI), a validated measure to assess symptoms in patients with gastroparesis, the authors found that there were few differences in GCSI scores in FD patients compared to historical controls. Both disorders are also similar in that upper endoscopy is often a requirement for diagnosis. The utility of performing a gastric emptying scan will be addressed in the diagnosis section.

Epidemiology and natural history

The epidemiology of FD is not as well understood as other functional gastrointestinal disorders such as IBS, as most epidemiologic research has focused on the broader topic of dyspepsia in general, rather than FD. Multiple studies, however, have shown that the majority of patients with dyspepsia (approximately 75–80%), once studied, are diagnosed with FD rather than an organic process . Thus, inferences can be safely made from a number of studies regarding the incidence and prevalence of FD.

The incidence of dyspepsia has been studied in 3 large studies. In a Swedish study of more than 1000 individuals from the community, the incidence of new-onset dyspepsia over 1 and 7 years was 1% and 3%, respectively . A study from the United Kingdom that followed patients over a 10-year period found a slightly higher incidence of new-onset dyspepsia of nearly 3% per year . A large, prospective survey study in Olmstead County (n=1365) over a 12-year period identified a new onset of FD symptoms of 5% . The prevalence of FD, based on an analysis of 22 separate studies, is estimated at approximately 10% . The natural history of FD was nicely described in a study by Olafsdottir and colleagues . A population-based survey study was performed in a large group of Icelandic adults (ages 18–75) over two time points, spaced 10 years apart (1996 and 2006). The prevalence of FD was 13.9% in the 1996 survey and 16.7% in the 2006 survey. Interestingly, women were more likely to be diagnosed with FD than men in the 2006 survey (20.2% vs. 12.3%), but not in the 1996 survey. The relative constancy in the overall prevalence rate of FD occurred because some patients noted a resolution of their symptoms over time, while others developed new symptoms. The natural history of FD was also investigated in a survey study of 253 patients with FD (Rome II criteria). Kindt and colleagues found that, over a mean follow-up of 68 months, 17% of patients reported resolution of symptoms while 38% reported an improvement in symptoms . No study has found that FD confers an increased risk for malignancy (e.g. gastric cancer) or reduces lifespan.

The epidemiology of gastroparesis is more difficult to tease out since many patients are categorized using inappropriate or less specific ICD-10 codes, such as the code for nausea and vomiting. One carefully performed study found that the observed prevalence of gastroparesis in Olmsted County was 37.8 in women and 9.6 in men per 100,000 persons . Using prevalence rates for the most common known cause of gastroparesis (diabetes), and data from other epidemiologic studies, it can be estimated that approximately 5–10 million US adults suffer from symptoms of gastroparesis. The natural history of GP has not been well-studied. Experienced clinicians who are experts in the evaluation and treatment of patients with GP report that a reasonable percentage of patients – approximately one-third - who develop GP after an infection will note a significant improvement or resolution of their symptoms over time (months to years). In contrast, patients with GP secondary to an underlying disorder (e.g., type 1 diabetes, scleroderma, prior gastric surgery, a malignancy), and those on opioids, may recognize symptom improvement with a combination of diet and medications - however, symptoms typically do not resolve. The reader is also referred to Chapter 4 for further details.

In summary, FD is a more prevalent disorder than is GP. This difference is important to highlight because when patients present with non-specific symptoms of upper abdominal pain, early satiety, nausea and bloating, it is 3–6 times more likely that, in the absence of warning signs, the diagnosis is that of FD, rather than GP.