Impact of orocecal transit time on patient´s perception of lactose intolerance.

BACKGROUND: symptoms attributed to the lactose intolerance are an important public health issue because of their prevalence and social relevance. Also because they may cause undue rejection of dairy products consume with potential health consequences. Transit time is a putative factor implied in the severity of symptoms associated with lactose. OBJECTIVES: to elucidate the relation between orocecal transit time (OCTT) and lactose intolerance symptoms. METHODS: observational study in patients referred to a lactose hydrogen breath test who showed an increase in breath H2 excretion higher than 25 ppm. OCTT was measured with the breath test and symptoms of lactose tolerance with a validated scale. Symptoms were measured twice: before receiving the lactose, inquiring about self perceived symptoms when patients consumed dairy products at home ("home symptoms"), and again after completing the lactose breath test ("test symptoms"). RESULTS: 161 patients were included. There was no correlation between OCTT and home symptoms (r = -0.1). When OCTT was faster than 60 minutes, intensity of "test symptoms" was similar to "home symptoms". However, in patients with normal or slow OCTT, the "home symptoms" were more intense than the "test symptoms" (p < 0.05). At home, symptoms were independent of OCTT but with the lactose test load the symptoms were proportionately more intense with faster OCTT. CONCLUSIONS: in lactose maldigesters, selfreported symptoms of lactose intolerance are more pronounced at home than after a high lactose challenge. Intolerance symptoms that patients attributed to lactose consume at home are due to factors other than fast OCTT.

Influencia del tiempo de tránsito orocecal en la percepción de los síntomas de intolerancia a la lactosa / Impact of orocecal transit time on patient’s perception of lactose intolerance

Antecedentes: los síntomas atribuidos a la intolerancia a la lactosa son un importante problema de salud pública. El tiempo de tránsito es un factor implicado en la severidad de los síntomas asociados al consumo de lactosa. Objetivos: elucidar la relación entre el tiempo de tránsito orocecal (TTOC) y los síntomas de intolerancia a la lactosa. Métodos: estudio observacional en pacientes con un test del aliento de hidrógeno con lactosa patológico (excreción de hidrógeno superior a 25 ppm). El TTOC se midió mediante el test del aliento y los síntomas mediante una escala previamente validada. Los síntomas se determinaron dos veces: antes de recibir la lactosa, preguntando acerca de los síntomas en casa cuando se consumen lácteos (“síntomas en casa”), y de nuevo después de completar el test del aliento con lactosa (“síntomas test”). Resultados: se han incluido 161 pacientes. No se observa correlación entre el TTOC y los síntomas en casa (r = -0,1). Cuando el TTOC fue más rápido de 60 minutos, la intensidad de los “síntomas test” fue parecida a la de los “síntomas en casa”. Sin embargo, en los pacientes con TTOC normal o lento, los “síntomas en casa” fueron más intensos que los “síntomas test” (p < 0,05). En casa los síntomas fueron independientes del TTOC mientras que después de la sobrecarga de lactosa los síntomas fueron más intensos cuanto más rápido el TTOC. Conclusiones: los síntomas que refieren las personas con malabsorción de lactosa son más pronunciados en casa que tras una sobrecarga de lactosa. Los síntomas de intolerancia que los pacientes atribuyen al consumo de lactosa en casa no son debidos a un TTOC rápido(AU)

Background: symptoms attributed to the lactose intolerance are an important public health issue because of their prevalence and social relevance. Also because they may cause undue rejection of dairy products consume with potential health consequences. Transit time is a putative factor implied in the severity of symptoms associated with lactose. Objectives: to elucidate the relation between orocecal transit time (OCTT) and lactose intolerance symptoms. Methods: observational study in patients referred to a lactose hydrogen breath test who showed an increase in breath H2 excretion higher than 25 ppm. OCTT was measured with the breath test and symptoms of lactose tolerance with a validated scale. Symptoms were measured twice: before receiving the lactose, inquiring about self perceived symptoms when patients consumed dairy products at home (“home symptoms”), and again after completing the lactose breath test (“test symptoms”). Results: 161 patients were included. There was no correlation between OCTT and home symptoms (r = -0.1). When OCTT was faster than 60 minutes, intensity of “test symptoms” was similar to “home symptoms”. However, in patients with normal or slow OCTT, the “home symptoms” were more intense than the “test symptoms” (p < 0.05). At home, symptoms were independent of OCTT but with the lactose test load the symptoms were proportionately more intense with faster OCTT. Conclusions: in lactose maldigesters, selfreported symptoms of lactose intolerance are more pronounced at home than after a high lactose challenge. Intolerance symptoms that patients attributed to lactose consume at home are due to factors other than fast OCTT(AU)

Subjective perception of lactose intolerance does not always indicate lactose malabsorption.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Symptomatic lactose intolerance is common; however, abdominal symptoms that patients experience after ingestion of lactose-containing foods can have causes beyond lactose malabsorption. We aimed to determine whether symptoms that patients usually attribute to lactose intolerance are comparable to symptoms provoked by a controlled lactose challenge and whether these symptoms are related to lactose absorption capacity. METHODS: We performed an observational, prospective, transverse study of 353 patients referred for a lactose hydrogen breath test (HBT). Patients completed a validated questionnaire about symptoms associated with consumption of dairy products at home (home symptoms). After a 50-g lactose breath test, they completed the same questionnaire again (lactose challenge symptoms). Patients were assigned to groups of absorbers or malabsorbers according to HBT results and tolerants or intolerants according to the results of the questionnaire. RESULTS: The total symptom score was significantly higher for home symptoms than for the lactose challenge (16 vs 8, P < .01). Symptoms perceived at home were reported to be more intense than those that followed the lactose challenge for lactose absorbers compared with malabsorbers (16 vs 4, P < .01) and lactose tolerants compared with intolerants (12 vs 2, P < .05). Overperception of lactose intolerance at home was similar in men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Daily life symptoms that patients associate with lactose intolerance are often unrelated to lactose malabsorption. Even among true lactose malabsorbers, symptom recall tends to be amplified by the patient. Thus, conventional anamnesis is a highly unreliable tool to establish symptomatic lactose malabsorption.

Responses of anal constipation to biofeedback treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Biofeedback is considered an effective treatment for anal constipation, but a substantial proportion of patients fail to improve. Our aim was to identify the key predictors of outcome using a comprehensive standardized evaluation of anorectal function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the clinical and physiological data of 148 patients consecutively treated for constipation due to functional outlet obstruction by biofeedback. Clinical evaluation was performed by means of a structured questionnaire. Anorectal evaluation included anal pressure, neural reflexes, defecatory dynamics, rectal compliance, rectal sensitivity and balloon expulsion test. Biofeedback treatment was performed using a manometric technique. The clinical response to biofeedback treatment was evaluated as good (improvement of constipation) or poor (no improvement or worsening). RESULTS: Of the 148 patients included, 112 (86 F, 26 M; age range 8-67 years) were followed-up for between 1 and 44 months, and 66% had a good response to treatment. The response depended on the severity of the defecatory dysfunction. Thus, lack of anal relaxation during straining and inability to evacuate a 1 ml intrarectal balloon were inversely related to physiological variables related to therapeutic success. Among the 49 patients with absent anal relaxation, 51% had a good response to treatment (versus 78% in patients with partial relaxation; p < 0.01), and among the 29 patients with failed balloon expulsion, 48% responded to treatment (versus 74% in patients able to evacuate > or = 1 ml intrarectal balloon; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Even in the presence of negative predictors, biofeedback is a valuable treatment option in a substantial proportion of constipated patients.

Predictors of response to biofeedback treatment in anal incontinence.

PURPOSE: Biofeedback is considered an effective treatment for anal incontinence, but a substantial proportion of patients fails to improve. The purpose of this study was to identify the key predictors of outcome. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and physiologic data of 145 patients consecutively treated in our unit for anal incontinence by biofeedback. Clinical evaluation was performed by means of a structured questionnaire that included previous history, symptoms of incontinence, and bowel habit. Anorectal evaluation measured anal pressure profiles, neural reflexes, defecatory dynamics, rectal compliance, and rectal sensitivity. Biofeedback treatment was performed by a manometric technique with reinforcement sessions scheduled every three months and daily exercising at home. Six months after the onset of biofeedback treatment the clinical response was evaluated as good (improvement of incontinence) or poor (no improvement or worsening). RESULTS: Of 126 patients (104 female; age range, 17-82 years) with at least six-month follow-up, 84 percent had a good response to treatment. By univariate analysis, several factors, such as age, history of constipation, abnormal defecatory maneuver, and rectal compliance, were significantly related to treatment response, but by multivariate logistic regression only age and defecatory maneuver were independent predictors of the response. The association of both factors provided the best sensitivity and specificity; 48 percent of patients younger than age 55 years and with abnormal defecatory maneuver had negative response to treatment, whereas 96 percent of patients age 55 years or older with normal defecatory maneuver had a positive response. CONCLUSION: In patients with anal incontinence scheduled for biofeedback treatment, potential alterations of defecation should be first searched for and corrected, particularly in younger patients.