4.3 Article

Effect of Age on Fructose Malabsorption in Children Presenting With Gastrointestinal Symptoms

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181fd1315

关键词

breath hydrogen test; fructose malabsorption; gastrointestinal disease

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award
  2. Wyeth Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Fructose malabsorption can produce symptoms such as chronic diarrhoea and abdominal pain. Here, we retrospectively review breath hydrogen test (BHT) results to determine whether age has an effect on the clinical application of the fructose BHT and compare this with the lactose BHT. Patients and Methods: Patients were referred to a gastroenterology breath-testing clinic (2003-2008) to investigate carbohydrate malabsorption as a cause of gastrointestinal symptoms. Patients received either 0.5 g/kg body weight of fructose (maximum of 10 g) or 2 g/kg of lactose (maximum of 20 g), in water, and were tested for 2.5 hours. Results: Patient age showed a significant effect on the fructose BHT results (P < 0.001, 0.1-79 years old, n = 1093). The odds of testing positive for fructose malabsorption in paediatric patients (15 years old or younger, n 760) decreased by a factor of 0.82/year (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.86, P < 0.001). There were 88.2% positive in younger than 1-year-olds, 66.6% in 1- to 5-year-olds, 40.4% in 6- to 10-year-olds, and 27.1% in 10- to 15-year-olds. In contrast, 39.3% of lactose BHTs were positive, with no significant relation between patient age and test result (P = 0.115, 0.1-89 years old, n = 3073). Conclusions: The majority of infants with gastrointestinal symptoms exhibited fructose malabsorption, but the capacity to absorb fructose increased with patient age up to 10 years old. The low threshold for fructose absorption in younger children has significant implications for the performance and interpretation of the fructose BHT and for the dietary consumption of fructose in infants with gastrointestinal symptoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据