4.3 Article

Antibiotic or bacterial therapy in post-giardiasis irritable bowel syndrome

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 44, 期 11, 页码 1296-1303

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.3109/00365520903274401

关键词

Functional disorders; malabsorption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Intestinal infection with Giardia lamblia may lead to therapy-resistant, long-lasting post-giardiasis irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We report two open pilot studies aiming to treat this condition, using either antibiotics or bacterio-therapy. Material and methods. Twenty-eight patients with persistent abdominal symptoms, following clearance of G. lamblia infection, were investigated. Eighteen received treatment with rifaximin plus metronidazole (8-10 days) whereas 10 received a suspension of live faecal flora, installed into the duodenum during gastro-duodenoscopy. Customary abdominal symptoms and symptoms following a lactulose breath test were quantified by questionnaires. Hydrogen and methane production after lactulose were analysed in expired air and excretion of fat and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) was examined in faeces. Results. As compared with pre-treatment values, total customary symptom scores were barely significantly reduced (p = 0.07) after antibiotics, but were highly significantly reduced (p = 0.0009) after bacterio-therapy. However, symptom improvement following bacterio-therapy did not persist 1 year later. Hydrogen breath excretion was slightly reduced after antibiotics, but not after bacterio-therapy. Compared with healthy persons, faecal excretion of fat was significantly increased in Giardia-cured patients. SCFAs were increased in the bacterio-therapy group, and were not influenced by therapy. Conclusions. Both antibiotics and bacterio-therapy were ineffective with respect to cure of post-giardiasis IBS. High faecal excretion of fat and SCFAs suggests that intestinal malabsorption of fat and carbohydrates may play a role in the IBS-like complaints of these patients.

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