4.3 Article

Carbohydrate Malabsorption and Putative Carbohydrate-Specific Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: Prevalence and Diagnostic Overlap Observed in an Austrian Outpatient Center

期刊

DIGESTION
卷 92, 期 1, 页码 32-38

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000430981

关键词

Carbohydrate malabsorption; Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth; Prevalence; LCT genotyping; Breath test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: While lactose malabsorption is a well-investigated condition, few epidenniologic data are available for fructose and sorbitol malabsorption. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence rates for primary lactose malabsorption, fructose and sorbitol malabsorption, and carbohydrate-specific small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (cs-SIBO) in an Austrian outpatient center. Methods: In total, 306 adult patients, who were primarily referred with suspected carbohydrate malabsorption by general practitioners to our outpatient clinic, underwent genetic testing (C/T-13910 polymorphism) for primary lactose malabsorption, and a combined hydrogen (H-2)/methane (CH4) breath test for fructose (25 g) and sorbitol (12.5 g) malabsorption. Cohen's kappa (kappa) was calculated for agreement between positive breath test results and self-reported symptoms during the test. Results: Seventy-eight (25.49%) patients were C/C-13910 homozygates, indicating primary lactose malabsorption. Thirty-four (11.11%) and 57 (18.63%) patients were classified as fructose and sorbitol malabsorbers. Cohen's kappa measuring agreements between positive fructose and sorbitol breath test results and self-reported symptoms during the test were 0.33 and 0.49, respectively. Twenty-nine (9.50%) patients with an early H-2/CH4 peak (i.e. within 60 minutes after fructose and/or sorbitol ingestion) were diagnosed with cs-SIBO. Conclusion: In Austria, carbohydrate malabsorption is a frequent condition in patients referred by general practitioners to carbohydrate malabsorption testing. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

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