Prospective comparison of diagnostic tests for bile acid diarrhoea

Abstract

SummaryBackgroundBile 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.AimsTo determine diagnostic characteristics of empirical treatment and explore improvements in diagnostics with potential better availability than SeHCAT.MethodsThis 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.ResultsNinety‐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.ConclusionsDiagnosis 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.