Pros and Cons While Looking Through an Asian Window on the Rome IV Criteria for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Pros

A decade after Rome III, in 2016, Rome IV criteria were published. There are major differences between Rome IV and the earlier iteration, some of which are in line with Asian viewpoints. The clinical applicability of the Rome IV criteria of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in Asian perspective is reviewed here. Instead of considering functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) to be largely psychogenic, Rome IV suggested the importance of the gut over brain (“disorders of gut-brain interaction” not “brain-gut interaction”). The word “functional” is underplayed. Multi-dimensional clinical profile attempts to recognize micro-organic nature, like slow colon transit and fecal evacuation disorders in constipation and dietary intolerance including that of lactose and fructose, bile acid malabsorption, non-celiac wheat sensitivity, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and gastrointestinal infection in diarrhea. Overlap between different FGIDs has been recognized as Rome IV suggests these to be a spectrum rather than discrete disorders. Bloating, common in Asia, received attention, though less. Sub-typing of IBS may be more clinician-friendly now as the patient-reported stool form may be used than a diary. However, a few issues, peculiar to Asia, need consideration; Rome IV, like Rome III, suggests that Bristol type I–II stool to denote constipation though Asian experts include type III as well. Work-up for physiological factors should be given greater importance. Language issue is important. Bloating, common in IBS, should be listed in the criteria. Threshold values for symptoms in Rome IV criteria are based on Western data. Post-infectious malabsorption (tropical sprue) should be excluded to diagnose post-infectious IBS, particularly in Asia.