Food Allergy and Intolerance : Distinction, Definitions and Delimitation

Food intolerance/malabsorption, including fructose malabsorption (FM), histamine intolerance (HIT), lactose intolerance (LIT), and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), may present with symptoms similar to symptoms of the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) spectrum. We aimed to investigate whether extra food intolerances/malabsorption and H. pylori infection affect the results of hydrogen breath tests in FM patients. A hydrogen (H2) breath test was conducted for evaluating FM and LIT. A serum diamine oxidase value determination, a search for H. pylori and antibodies to tissue transglutaminase were made. A retrospective analysis of 318 patients with FM identified 50 with FM-only, 50 FM patients with HIT and 50 FM patients with additional LIT, 50 FM and HIT patients also had LIT. Thirty-one FM patients had H. pylori, 26 FM patients had HIT and H. pylori and 40 FM patients had LIT and H. pylori, and 21 had FM, HIT, LIT and H. pylori. With the Kruskal-Wallis test we compared the area under the curve (AUC) and demonstrated that H2 was significantly elevated in FM with LIT and FM and H. pylori patients compared to those with FM-only (p = 0.039, respectively). The comparison of the AUCs of FM-only to FM, LIT, and HIT (p = 0.006) and to FM, LIT, and HIT with H. pylori revealed a significant elevation (p = 0.026) in H2 values. In patients diagnosed with FM, the presence of additional food intolerance/malabsorption and H. pylori infection has been demonstrated to significantly increase expiratory H2 values during fructose H2 breath tests.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic idiopathic constipation ((CIC) also referred to as functional constipation) are two of the most common functional gastrointestinal disorders worldwide. IBS is a global problem, with anywhere from 5 to 15% of the general population experiencing symptoms that would satisfy a definition of IBS (1,2). In a systematic review on the global prevalence of IBS, Lovell and Ford (1) documented a pooled prevalence of 11% with all regions of the world suffering from this disorder at similar rates. Given its prevalence, the frequency of symptoms, and their associated debility for many patients and the fact that IBS typically occurs in younger adulthood, an important period for furthering education, embarking on careers, and/or raising families, the socioeconomic impact of IBS is considerable. These indirect medical costs are frequently compounded by the direct medical costs related to additional medical tests and the use of various medical and nonmedical remedies that may have limited impact. CIC is equally common; in another systematic review, Suares and Ford (3) reported a pooled prevalence of 14%, and also noted that constipation was more common in females, in older subjects, and those of lower socioeconomic status (3). Chronic constipation has also been linked to impaired quality of life (4), most notably among the elderly (5). Neither IBS nor CIC are associated with abnormal radiologic or endoscopic abnormalities, nor are they associated with a reliable biomarker; diagnosis currently rests entirely, therefore, on clinical grounds. Although a number of clinical definitions of both IBS and CIC have been proposed, the criteria developed through the Rome process, currently in its third iteration, have been those most widely employed in clinical trials and, therefore, most relevant to any review of the literature on the management of these disorders. According to Rome III, IBS is defined on the basis of the presence of: Recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort at least 3 days/month in the past 3 months associated with two or more of the following: Improvement with defecation Onset associated with a change in frequency of stool Onset associated with a change in form (appearance) of stool These criteria should be fulfilled for the past 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months before diagnosis (6). Rome III defines functional constipation as: the presence of two or more of the following: Straining during at least 25% of defecations Lumpy or hard stools in at least 25% of defecations Sensation of incomplete evacuation for at least 25% of defecations Sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockage for at least 25% of defecations Manual maneuvers to facilitate at least 25% of defecations (e.g., digital evacuation, support of the pelvic floor) Fewer than three defecations per week Furthermore, loose stools are rarely present without the use of laxatives and there are insufficient criteria for IBS. Again, these criteria should be fulfilled for the past 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months before diagnosis (6). In Rome III, IBS is subtyped according to predominant bowel habit as IBS with constipation (IBS-C), IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), mixed type (IBS-M), and unclassified (IBS-U). The definition of bowel habit type is, in turn, based on the patient's description of stool form by referring to the Bristol Stool Scale (7). The recognition that IBS sufferers segregate into subtypes according to predominant bowel habit, together with research findings suggesting that IBS-C and IBS-D may be pathophysiologically distinct entities (8,9,10), led to the development of therapies specifically directed at each of these subtypes. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that symptoms may not be stable over a lifetime and individuals may exhibit one IBS subtype during a period, and then a different IBS subtype during another period in their lives. However, although there is general awareness of the Rome criteria, they are infrequently employed in the assessment of IBS and CIC in clinical practice (11). To provide more "clinician friendly" definitions, as well as to permit inclusion of studies that predated the Rome process, American College of Gastroenterology Task Forces suggested the following definitions in prior systematic reviews: IBS is defined by: abdominal discomfort associated with altered bowel habits (12). Constipation is defined as: a symptom-based disorder defined as unsatisfactory defecation and is characterized by infrequent stools, difficult stool passage, or both. Difficult stool passage includes straining, a sense of difficulty passing stool, incomplete evacuation, hard/lumpy stools, prolonged time to stool, or need for manual maneuvers to pass stool. CIC is defined as the presence of these symptoms for at least 3 months (13). It is important to note that the Rome III criteria state that individuals with chronic constipation do not fulfill criteria for IBS, with pain or discomfort being a major determinant in the latter. In practice, a clear separation between CIC and IBS with constipation may be challenging and studies have shown, not only considerable overlap between these entities (14,15,16), but also a significant tendency for patients to migrate between these diagnoses over time (15). It is appropriate therefore that in this update of prior American College of Gastroenterology monographs on IBS and CIC, these entities be addressed in the same exercise (12,13,17). The goal of this exercise, therefore, was to update the most recent systematic reviews commissioned by the American College of Gastroenterology on IBS from 2009 (17) and CIC from 2005 (13). METHODS We have conducted a series of systematic reviews on the efficacy of therapy in IBS and CIC. There have been several systematic reviews of therapy for IBS and CIC published in the past 5 years (18,19,20,21,22). There have been considerable data published in the intervening time, and hence we have, therefore, updated all these systematic reviews of IBS and CIC and synthesized the data, including the information from new trials, where appropriate. The primary objective of this exercise was to assess the efficacy of available therapies in treating IBS and CIC compared with placebo or no treatment. The secondary objectives included assessing the efficacy of available therapies in treating IBS according to predominant stool pattern reported (IBS with constipation, IBS with diarrhea, and mixed IBS), as well as assessing adverse events with therapies for both IBS and CIC. Systematic review methodology We evaluated manuscripts that studied adults (aged >16 years) using any definition of IBS or CIC. For IBS, this included a clinician-defined diagnosis, the Manning criteria (23), the Kruis score (24), or Rome I (25), II (26), or III (6) criteria. For CIC, this included symptoms diagnosed by any of the Rome criteria (6,25,26), as well as a clinician-defined diagnosis. We included only parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing active intervention with either placebo or no therapy. Crossover trials were eligible for inclusion, provided extractable data were provided at the end of the first treatment period, before crossover. For IBS, the following treatments were considered: Diet and dietary manipulation Fiber Interventions that modify the microbiota: probiotics, prebiotics, antibiotics Antispasmodics Peppermint oil Loperamide Antidepressants Psychological therapies, including hypnotherapy Serotonergic agents Prosecretory agents Polyethylene glycol For CIC, the following were considered: Fiber Osmotic and stimulant laxatives 5-HT4 agonists Prosecretory agents Biofeedback Bile acid transporter inhibitors Probiotics Subjects needed to be followed up for at least 1 week. To be eligible, trials needed to include one or more of the following outcome measures: Global assessment of improvement in IBS or CIC symptoms Improvement in abdominal pain for IBS Global IBS symptom or abdominal pain scores for IBS Mean number of stools per week during therapy for CIC Search strategy for identification of studies MEDLINE (1946 to October 2013), EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1947 to October 2013), and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched. Studies on IBS were identified with the terms irritable bowel syndrome and functional diseases, colon (both as medical subject headings (MeSH) and free text terms), and IBS, spastic colon, irritable colon, and functional adj5 bowel (as free text terms). For RCTs of dietary manipulation, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: diet, fat-restricted, diet, protein-restricted, diet, carbohydrate-restricted, diet, gluten-free, diet, macrobiotic, diet, vegetarian, diet, Mediterranean, diet fads, gluten, fructose, lactose intolerance, or lactose (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: FODMAP$, glutens, food adj5 intolerance, food allergy, or food hypersensitivity. For RCTs of fiber, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: dietary fiber, cereals, psyllium, methylcellulose, sterculia, karaya gum, parasympatholytics, hyoscyamine, scopolamine, trimebutine, muscarinic antagonists, or butylscopolammonium bromide (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: bulking agent, psyllium fiber, fiber, husk, bran, ispaghula, wheat bran, calcium polycarbophil, spasmolytics, spasmolytic agents, antispasmodics, mebeverine, alverine, pinaverium bromide, otilonium bromide, cimetropium bromide, hyoscine butyl bromide, butylscopolamine, peppermint oil, or colpermin. For RCTs of probiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: Saccharomyces, Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Escherichia coli, or probiotics (both as MeSH and free text terms). For RCTs of prebiotics and synbiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the term: prebiotic (both MeSH and free text terms) or synbiotic (both MeSH and free text terms). For RCTs of antibiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: anti-bacterial agents, penicillins, cephalosporins, rifamycins, quinolones, nitroimidazoles, tetracycline, doxycycline, amoxicillin, ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, or tinidazole (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: antibiotic or rifamixin. For RCTs of loperamide, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: loperamide or antidiarrheals (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: imodium or lopex. For RCTs of antidepressants and psychological therapies, including hypnotherapy, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: psychotropic drugs, antidepressive agents, antidepressive agents (tricyclic), desipramine, imipramine, trimipramine, doxepin, dothiepin, nortriptyline, amitriptyline, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, paroxetine, sertraline, fluoxetine, citalopram, venlafaxine, cognitive therapy, psychotherapy, behavior therapy, relaxation techniques, or hypnosis (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, or hypnotherapy. For RCTs of serotonergic agents, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: serotonin antagonists, serotonin agonists, cisapride, receptors (serotonin, 5-HT3), or receptors (serotonin, 5-HT4) (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: 5-HT3, 5-HT4, alosetron, cilansetron, ramosetron, prucalopride, mosapride, or renzapride. For RCTs of pro-secretory agents, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the following free text terms: linaclotide or lubiprostone. For RCTs of polyethylene glycol (PEG), these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the term polyethylene glycol (both as a MeSH and free text term). Studies on CIC were identified with the terms constipation or gastrointestinal transit (both as MeSH and free text terms), or functional constipation, idiopathic constipation, chronic constipation, or slow transit (as free text terms). For the search involving biofeedback, the free text terms dyssynergia, pelvic floor dysfunction, anismus, and outlet obstruction were also added. For RCTs of fiber, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: dietary fiber, cellulose, plant extracts, psyllium, cereals, plantago, or methylcellulose (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: fiber, soluble fiber, insoluble fiber, bran, ispaghula, metamucil, fybogel, or ispaghula. For RCTs of osmotic and stimulant laxatives, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: laxatives, cathartics, anthraquinones, phenolphthaleins, indoles, phenols, lactulose, polyethylene glycol, senna plant, senna extract, bisacodyl, phosphates, dioctyl sulfosuccinic acid, magnesium, magnesium hydroxide, sorbitol, poloxamer (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: sodium picosulphate, docusate, milk of magnesia, danthron, senna, and poloxalkol. For RCTs of 5-HT4 agonists, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: serotonin agonists, receptors, or serotonin, 5-HT4 (both as MeSH and free text terms), or the following free text terms: prucalopride, velusetrag, or naronapride. For RCTs of pro-secretory agents, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the following free text terms: lubiprostone or linaclotide. For RCTs of biofeedback, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the MESH terms biofeedback and psychology and the following free text terms: biofeedback or neuromuscular training. For RCTs of bile acid transporter inhibitors, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the following free text terms: bile acid transporter, elobixibat, or A3309. For RCTs of probiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the terms: Saccharomyces, Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, E. coli, or probiotics (both as MeSH and free text terms). For RCTs of prebiotics and synbiotics, these were combined using the set operator AND with studies identified with the term: prebiotic (both MESH and free text terms) or synbiotic (both MESH and free text terms). The search was limited to humans. No restrictions were applied with regard to language of publication. A recursive search of the bibliography of relevant articles was also conducted. DDW (Digestive Diseases Week) and UEGW (United European Gastroenterology Week) abstract books were hand searched between 2000 and 2013. Authors of trial reports that did not give enough detail for adequate data extraction were contacted and asked to contribute full data sets. Experts in the field were contacted for leads on unpublished studies. Trials were assessed for risk of bias according to the methods described in the Cochrane handbook [27] using the following characteristics: method used to generate the randomization schedule, method used to conceal treatment allocation, implementation of masking, completeness of follow-up, and conduct of an intention-to-treat analysis. Eligibility, quality, and outcome data were extracted by the lead reviewer (Alexander Ford) and by a masked second reviewer (Paul Moayyedi) on to specially developed forms. Any discrepancy was resolved by discussion between the two reviewers in order to reach a consensus. Data were extracted as intention-to-treat analyses, where all dropouts were assumed to be treatment failures, wherever trial reporting allowed this. Data synthesis For IBS, whenever possible, any improvement of global IBS symptoms as a binary outcome was taken as the primary outcome measure. If this was not available, improvement in abdominal pain was used. For CIC, any improvement of global CIC symptoms as a binary outcome was taken as the primary outcome measure. The impact of interventions was expressed as a relative risk (RR) of IBS or CIC symptoms not improving, together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). If there were sufficient data, RRs were combined using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model (28) to give a more conservative estimate of the efficacy of individual IBS therapies. For continuous data, such as global IBS symptom scores or individual IBS symptom scores, a standardized mean difference, with 95% CIs, was calculated. It should be noted that some treatments may be beneficial in IBS or CIC because of the effects on outcomes other than global symptoms or abdominal pain, but this was not evaluated and was outside of the scope of this review. Tests of heterogeneity were reported (29). When the test of heterogeneity was significant (P<0.10 and/or I2>25%), the reasons for this were explored by evaluating differences in study population, study design, or study end points in subgroup analyses. Publication bias or other causes of small study effects were evaluated using tests for funnel plot asymmetry (30), where sufficient studies were identified (31). The number needed to treat (NNT), which is the number of patients who would need to receive active therapy, over and above the control therapy, for one to experience an improvement in symptoms, and the number needed to harm (NNH), which is the number of patients who would need to receive active therapy, over and above the control therapy, for one to experience an adverse event were calculated as the inverse of the risk difference from the meta-analysis and checked using the formula: NNT = 100 / RRR × BR, where BR is baseline risk and RRR is relative risk reduction. Methodology for assessing levels of evidence and grading recommendations We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system for grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation for each medical intervention (32). The system has been widely used in evidence-based guidelines and is endorsed by all major gastrointestinal societies (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org). The quality of the evidence is based on the study design, as well as the extent of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias that exists for the evidence supporting the intervention (33). Quality of evidence is described as high to very low, depending on the extent to which further evidence would change the estimate of treatment effect (Box 1). The grading scheme also classifies recommendations as strong or weak, according to the quality of the evidence, applicability to all patient groups, balance of benefits and risks, patient preferences, and cost. With this graded recommendation, the clinician receives guidance about whether or not recommendations should be applied to most patients, and whether or not recommendations are likely to change in the future after production of new evidence. "Strong" recommendations represent a "recommendation that can apply to most patients in most circumstances and further evidence is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of treatment effect." The summary of the evidence for IBS is presented in Table 1, the reasons for the decision on the quality of that evidence in Table 2, and the reasons for the strength of recommendation in Table 3. Similarly, the summary of the evidence for CIC is presented in Table 4, the reasons for the decision on quality of the evidence in Table 5, and the reasons for the strength of recommendation in Table 6.Box 1.: Interpretation of the grading of the quality of evidenceTable 1: Summary of results of monograph on interventions for IBSTable 2: Reasons for quality of evidence of assessment for IBS data according to GRADE criteriaTable 2: Continued.Table 3: Reasons for strength of recommendation for IBS therapies according to GRADE criteriaTable 4: Summary of results of monograph on interventions for CICTable 5: Reasons for quality of evidence of assessment of data on CIC according to GRADE criteriaTable 6: Reasons for strength of recommendation for treatments of CIC according to GRADE criteriaRESULTS Irritable bowel syndrome 1. Diet and dietary manipulation in IBS (a) Role of diet in IBS: Although food intake is one of the most common precipitants of symptoms in IBS (34), responses to food and with of the diet have not typically in the of a on their IBS sufferers have their to this or guidance from dietary IBS patients that they have an to although food are in IBS although the prevalence of food in societies is between 1 and in of gastrointestinal patients that that their symptoms food or food IBS symptoms to represent food intolerance, although only of patients can the food in a on their with and a of objective evidence to a studies have that a of IBS patients dietary to an extent that may their Role of dietary manipulation in may symptoms in individual IBS Quality of very We identified RCTs that evaluated dietary intervention in IBS to data of relevant symptom data and an intervention week three RCTs involving patients The first of these addressed the impact of in IBS. In a patients with IBS were randomized to either on a diet or to receive of on of an In the reported that their symptoms were not controlled as compared with in the placebo symptom scores for abdominal pain, with stool and were in those who a The second of these studies the of food or as not by but by In a parallel-group IBS patients were randomized to either an diet based on the presence of to various or a were followed for and symptoms assessed using a global impact score and the IBS with in the diet in the diet intervention noted a significant improvement in The reported in those with high to their The third study the of and IBS patients were randomized to a diet or their diet for those randomized to the diet, reported adequate control of their symptoms compared with of the diet Stool did not between stool frequency was in the diet A significant of this study was the of the dietary the of dietary in the of symptoms, or in the of IBS, is being To two and have been addressed in clinical trials, although it is that other (e.g., of and with the may also be relevant to the effects of food or food the that any of the of an diet or of a food in IBS the data provide limited guidance on the of diet in the management of IBS. and but their in the management of IBS need to be Fiber in IBS Fiber symptom in IBS. Quality of but not bran, symptom in IBS. Quality of intake of dietary is frequently to bowel for IBS, for However, insoluble frequently and abdominal In our prior systematic review we identified two additional studies for a of RCTs involving but trials did not IBS by subtype and only two to IBS-C In the study to patients, of were IBS-C and were were randomized to one of three of the soluble psyllium, of the insoluble bran, or of a placebo for the first a of patients psyllium, but not bran, reported adequate symptom for at least compared with placebo psyllium 95% was more than placebo during the third of treatment only 3 months of symptom in the psyllium was by points compared with points in the placebo and points in the No differences were with to quality of was most common in the most because of in IBS. Data on adverse events were only provided by trials These trials evaluated patients, but as of adverse events were small in 5 of the trials, of data was not A of of patients reported adverse events compared with of in the placebo Although its use in the management of IBS is time the status of fiber, in in IBS, is from may symptoms and provide soluble and psyllium, in provide in IBS. These effects to benefits in terms of of 3. Interventions that modify the microbiota: probiotics, prebiotics, and antibiotics The that the be relevant to IBS first from the that a although of individuals who an of on to IBS IBS Although has been linked to and and in the have been described in IBS, the of the to or other symptoms in IBS, is although both small and and in the have also been linked to IBS the of to IBS and findings in to the in patient probiotics, and have been used for on an basis by IBS they have only been to in clinical The of studies in IBS challenging as studies have employed different and in various patient and in Although the suggested that more than of all IBS sufferers studies have, in to such a high prevalence of in IBS These results may to to the test that may provide an of the this provided a for assessing antibiotics in IBS. a has efficacy in clinical trials in and although significant were over placebo in global IBS symptoms as well as in it is important to note that tests for were not in these trials, the of of in IBS (a) and in IBS: There is insufficient evidence to prebiotics or in IBS. Quality of very Probiotics in as a probiotics global symptoms, and in IBS.

Functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs) are among the most common types of chronic pain disorders in children. FAPD symptoms are characterized by chronic abdominal pain and changed bowel movements. The pathophysiology of FAPDs in children is unknown, but these conditions may have an imprecise clinical overlap to food intolerance/malabsorption. We report on 51 consecutive children (23/28 males/females; median age 15.3 years) with investigated FAPDs from 2017 to 2022 in this retrospective pilot study. Small intestinal biopsies in children demonstrated the association of lactase and diamine oxidase (DAO), which prompted us to perform hydrogen (H2) breath tests for lactose intolerance (LIT) and determine serum DAO for the evaluation of histamine intolerance (HIT) in pediatric patients with FAPDs. To complete the food intolerance/malabsorption evaluation tests, we included a search for antibodies against tissue transglutaminase to find celiac disease (CD), performed H2 breath tests to detect fructose malabsorption (FM), and conducted a search for IgA antibodies against H. pylori infection. The results demonstrate that all 51 children evaluated were diagnosed with food intolerance/malabsorption and/or various combinations thereof. Seven children showed FM, eight of the children had HIT, and eight children had LIT. The other children had combinations: thirteen children (25.5%) had HIT and LIT, seven children (9.8%) had FM with HIT, five children (13.7%) had FM and LIT, and three children (5.9%) had a triple combination of FM, HIT, and LIT. By describing this method of personalized investigation for food intolerance/malabsorption in children with FAPDs, we demonstrate that functional abdominal pain disorders may be associated with food intolerance/malabsorption. After such diagnosis in this pediatric population, a registered dietitian helped to establish a reduction and/or exclusion diet individually tailored to their symptomatology.

Gas production due to fermentation from fructose malabsorption (FM) or lactose malabsorption (LM) and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) contribute to the development of gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, the impact of the carbohydrate malabsorption, unlike SIBO, is relatively unknown. A multicenter, prospective study of consecutive adults with IBS who underwent a hydrogen breath test (HBT) (glucose, 75 g; lactose, 25 g; or fructose, 25 g) was conducted. The proportion of patients who tested positive for glucose, fructose and lactose HBT were evaluated. The symptom severity, psychology, and quality of life of subjects with SIBO were compared with those having LM and/or FM. Independent factors associated with severe IBS (IBS-symptom severity scale: IBS-SSS > 300) were explored. A total of 116 subjects were included (median age 56 years, male 35.3%). Of these, 23.3% (27/116), 85.7% (24/28), and 44.4% (16/36) of them tested positive for glucose, lactose, and fructose HBT, respectively. Among those with a positive HBT (n = 65), patients with SIBO were more likely to have the diarrhea-predominant subtype of IBS (77.8% vs. 47.4%, p = 0.014). Severe IBS was associated with SIBO, compared with LM/FM (SIBO: 36.4% vs. LM: 9.1%/FM 13.3%, p = 0.016). With multivariate analysis, SIBO (OR 5.25, p = 0.028) and depression (OR 5.59, p = 0.030) were independently associated with severe IBS. Although LM and FM commonly co-exist in IBS, their clinical relevance appears to be less significant than that of SIBO. The connection between SIBO with depression reinforces the importance of the microbiome-gut-brain axis in IBS.

Food challenges

Peppermint oil (Mintoil ®) in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A prospective double blind placebo-controlled randomized trial

There has been much confusion in recent years regarding the terminology used to describe allergic reactions, particularly food reactions. The World Allergy Organisation Nomenclature Review Committee has proposed the following nomenclature. The term food hypersensitivity is used to describe any adverse reaction to a food and encompasses the two distinctly different pathologies of: Food allergy. Food allergy is defined as a reaction that is due to an immunological mechanism and can be further characterised as IgE (allergy antibody) mediated or non-IgE mediated. Food intolerance. Food intolerance, in contrast, is a hypersensitivity that is non immunologically mediated. It may occur as a result of factors present in the food such as toxins (eg. histamine in scromboid fish poisoning) or pharmacologic (eg. tyramine in cheeses or red wine). These reactions can occur in most subjects when given in high enough doses. Alternatively, food intolerance may occur as a result of a metabolic disorder (eg. lactase deficiency resulting in lactose intolerance). ---------------------- This update on headlice aims to support health professionals in their work with parents and families who are trying to manage infestations.

Due to an inhibited tryptophan resorption, patients with fructose malabsorption are expected to experience decreased serotonin synthesis. A deficiency of serotonin may cause internalizing mental disorders like depression and anxiety, and a fructose-oriented eating behavior may affect these symptoms. The parents of 24 children and adolescents with a currently diagnosed fructose malabsorption aged 4;00-13;02 years (M = 8.10, SD = 2.05), the parents of 12 patients with a currently confirmed combination of fructose and lactose malabsorption aged 4;00-12;11 years (M = 8.07, SD = 2.11) and the parents of a comparative sample of 19 healthy participants aged 5;00 to 17;07 years (M = 9.06, SD = 3.04) were interviewed. The interviews were conducted using a screening questionnaire of the German "Diagnostic System of Mental Disorders in children and adolescents based on the ICD-10 and DSM-5 DISYPS-III" and a self-developed questionnaire on eating, leisure and sleeping behavior. On standardized scales parents of children with fructose malabsorption reported higher levels of Depression compared to symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant and Conduct Disorders (ODD/CD). Compared to healthy controls, for patients with fructose malabsorption, higher symptom levels of Depression and Anxiety were reported. With regard to eating behavior, within the group with a combination of fructose and lactose malabsorption, a strong positive association between an increased fruit sugar consumption and higher levels of Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders/Tics were found. These results suggest a close association between fructose malabsorption and elevated internalizing psychological symptoms in children and adolescents.Clinical trial registration:https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00031047, DRKS-ID [DRKS00031047].

Does atopic dermatitis cause food allergy? A systematic review

Symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and lactose intolerance (LI) overlap. Data on the frequency of LI in patients with IBS from India are scanty. The aim of this study was to evaluate: (i) the frequency of LI in patients with IBS and its various subtypes as compared with healthy subjects (HS) from northern India; (ii) the relationship between self-reported milk intolerance and laboratory evidence of LI; and (iii) the role of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in LI in patients with IBS. 124 patients with IBS (Rome II criteria) and 53 age- and gender-matched HS were studied for LI using the lactose hydrogen breath test (LHBT) and the lactose tolerance test (LTT). Symptoms following lactose ingestion (diarrhea, bloating or distension) during the test and history of milk intolerance were recorded. Sixty-nine of the patients with IBS also underwent a glucose hydrogen breath test (GHBT). Patients with IBS were classified into those with diarrhea (IBS-D; >3 loose stools/d), constipation predominant (IBS-C; <3 stools/week) and indeterminate (IBS-I; between >or=3/week and <or= 3/d). 89/124 (72%) and 32/53 (60%, P = ns) IBS patients and HS were positive by LHBT and 82/124 (66%) and 38/53 (71%, P = ns) by LTT. Lactose intolerance as diagnosed either by LHBT or LTT was comparable among IBS patients and HS (102/124, 82% vs 41/53, 77%; P = ns). Peak breath hydrogen values during LHBT were also comparable among patients with IBS and HS (64 +/- 40 p.p.m. vs 61 +/- 44 p.p.m.). Patients with IBS developed symptoms following lactose ingestion more frequently than HS (68/124 vs 18/53, P = 0.01). Glucose hydrogen breath test was positive in 9/69 (13%) patients with IBS and was comparable among patients with (8/57, 14%) and without LI (1/12, 8%). Thirty had IBS-D whereas 94 had other subtypes of IBS (IBS-C, n = 9 and IBS-I, n = 85). The frequency of LI in IBS-D was similar to that of other subtypes (26/30, 86% vs 76/94, 80%; P = ns). The positive and negative predictive value of self-reported milk intolerance in detecting LI was 81% and 23%, respectively. The frequency of LI is high and comparable among IBS patients and HS from northern India. Patients with IBS more often reported symptoms following lactose ingestion despite levels of breath hydrogen being similar to HS. The frequency of LI in patients with IBS-D was comparable to that in patients with other types of IBS. Self-reported milk intolerance has poor sensitivity in detecting LI.

Food allergies and intolerance represent important health concerns to consumers who are predisposed to these illnesses. Unlike many current food safety issues, food sensitivities are complicated by both complex and multiple individual adverse reactions, which can vary from emotional to pathophysiological ailments. In some instances, the underlying mechanisms that result in the development of food allergies or intolerance have marked differences but produce common symptoms. The present-day diagnosis of these disorders can be impeded by intrinsic limitations in generating accurate information from patient history and biochemical, physicochemical, and immunochemical tests. Oral challenge tests represent effective methods for confirming and testing food allergens and food intolerance; however, these procedures are often restricted to clinical trials. It is important to be able to distinguish among food allergy, intolerance, and autoimmune disease in the management of these disorders. The role of food in the development of autoimmune disease may be exemplified by celiac disease, a food-induced enteropathy, requiring exposure to prolamins in wheat, rye, and barley. Various wheat and soy protein sources, including the soy protein isolates used to make infant formulas, have been related to juvenile or insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), a common chronic disease of childhood. Employing food process technologies to eliminate food constituents with potential for intolerance in some individuals is a potentially viable approach for reducing risk to food-related disorders. Finally, the development of food labelling regulations that require the identification of potential food allergens or agents for intolerance in the ingredient declaration on prepackaged food is a positive step toward the prevention of severe adverse reactions in hypersensitive individuals.

&lt;p&gt;Food allergies and intolerance represent important health concerns to consumers who are predisposed to these illnesses. Unlike many current food safety issues, food sensitivities are complicated by both complex and multiple individual adverse reactions, which can vary from emotional to pathophysiological ailments. In some instances, the underlying mechanisms that result in the development of food allergies or intolerance have marked differences but produce common symptoms. The present-day diagnosis of these disorders can be impeded by intrinsic limitations in generating accurate information from patient history and biochemical, physicochemical, and immunochemical tests. Oral challenge tests represent effective methods for confirming and testing food allergens and food intolerance; however, these procedures are often restricted to clinical trials. It is important to be able to distinguish among food allergy, intolerance, and autoimmune disease in the management of these disorders. The role of food in the development of autoimmune disease may be exemplified by celiac disease, a food-induced enteropathy, requiring exposure to prolamins in wheat, rye, and barley. Various wheat and soy protein sources, including the soy protein isolates used to make infant formulas, have been related to juvenile or insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), a common chronic disease of childhood. Employing food process technologies to eliminate food constituents with potential for intolerance in some individuals is a potentially viable approach for reducing risk to food-related disorders. Finally, the development of food labelling regulations that require the identification of potential food allergens or agents for intolerance in the ingredient declaration on prepackaged food is a positive step toward the prevention of severe adverse reactions in hypersensitive individuals.&lt;/p&gt;

The current understanding of atopic dermatitis (AD) seems to be extending beyond a skin-confined condition frequently associated with allergic comorbidities, as in a number of epidemiological studies, the prevalence rate of a range of illnesses has been determined to be greater in patients with AD, or inversely. In most cases, the reasons for this are vague. A subset of these conditions are gastrointestinal disorders, including food sensitization (FS) and food allergy (FA), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) (it is of mixed background, both IgE-dependent and independent), food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) (it exemplifies an IgE-independent food allergy), Crohn's disease (CD), colitis ulcerosa (CU), celiac disease, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In this review, we performed a comprehensive search of the literature using the PubMed database. We addressed the epidemiology of the increased co-occurrence of these diseases with AD and discussed potential causes for this subject. Multiple gastroenterological comorbidities appear to be more common in patients with AD, according to our review. The mechanisms that underlie this phenomenon are largely unknown, highlighting the need for further study in this field.

PurposeFor attendees with allergies, intolerances and coeliac disease, accessing safe, nutritious and good quality food and drink is a vital but challenging dimension of events. This study sought to capture and analyse the lived event experiences of individuals with a variety of food-related health, wellbeing and safety needs.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopted an inductive approach, using semi-structured interviews to gather qualitative data from participants with various food allergies and intolerances or coeliac disease.FindingsAttendees had low expectations regarding food choice, quality and value, which stemmed from past event experiences. Poor information about suitable food and drink, coupled with frontline staffs' perceived knowledge, responsiveness and care were frequently seen as sources of service failures. The data stress how exposure to potentially harmful foods and food avoidance influenced attendees' experiences. The findings also help to appreciate consumers' agency, identifying various coping strategies used by affected individuals to anticipate risks, engage in compensatory behaviours and mitigate the effects of unsuitable food and drink.Originality/valueThis study is unique in examining the event experiences of individuals with food allergies, intolerances and coeliac disease. It demonstrates how practices in the crucial domain of food and drink provision can affect the overall event experience, with potential consequences at, across and potentially beyond the venue and occasion. From a theoretical perspective, the study conceptualises intersections of risk, value-creation/destruction and experiential consumption. It shows the “episodic” and “perpetual” impacts of “risk loaded” consumption, while arguing that diverse value-creation/destruction practices mediate pathways leading to different experiential outcomes.

Hydrogen breath tests are quite popular for diagnosing carbohydrate malabsorption such as lactose and fructose malabsorption, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). The lactulose hydrogen breath test is also used for estimation of mouth-to-cecum transit time. These are easy to perform and are noninvasive. With growing recognition of food intolerance as the cause of symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and importance of SIBO in pathogenesis of a subset of patients with IBS, the importance of some noninvasive tests for diagnosis of these conditions can’t be overestimated. However, diagnosis of SIBO using hydrogen breath tests have limitations. Though the glucose hydrogen breath test is highly specific, it is quite insensitive. In contrast, double-peak criterion on the lactulose hydrogen breath test is very insensitive and early-peak criterion is quite non-specific. The lactose hydrogen breath test using 25-g lactose is quite sensitive and specific for diagnosis of lactose malabsorption. Techniques and interpretation of various hydrogen breath tests are reviewed in this chapter.