U.S. patent application number 10/514188 was filed with the patent office on 2006-11-02 for manipulation of the rate of gastrointestinal transit by modulating intestinal methane concertration.
This patent application is currently assigned to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Invention is credited to Henry C. Lin, Mark Pimentel.
Application Number | 20060246045 10/514188 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 29584369 |
Filed Date | 2006-11-02 |
United States Patent
Application |
20060246045 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Pimentel; Mark ; et
al. |
November 2, 2006 |
Manipulation of the rate of gastrointestinal transit by modulating
intestinal methane concertration
Abstract
Disclosed is a method of manipulating the rate of
gastrointestinal transit in a mammalian subject Also disclosed is
the use, in the manufacture of a medicamens for the treatment of
constipation, of a selective inhibitor of methanogensis, a
methanogen-displacing probiotic agent, or a prebiotic agent that
inhibits the growth of methanogenic bacteria or promotes the growth
of competing non-methanogenic intestinal flora. Alternatively, in
accordance with the invention, is disclosed the use in the
manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of diarrhea, of
methane, or a methane precursor, a methanogenic or other
methane-enhancing probiotic agent, or a methanogenesis-enhancing
prebiotic agent.
Inventors: |
Pimentel; Mark; (Los
Angeles, CA) ; Lin; Henry C.; (Los Angeles,
CA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 FIGUEROA STREET
SUITE 2400
LOS ANGELES
CA
90017-2566
US
|
Assignee: |
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
|
Family ID: |
29584369 |
Appl. No.: |
10/514188 |
Filed: |
May 20, 2003 |
PCT Filed: |
May 20, 2003 |
PCT NO: |
PCT/US03/16656 |
371 Date: |
September 19, 2005 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
60382172 |
May 20, 2002 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
424/93.45 ;
514/419 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A61K 36/064 20130101;
A61K 35/745 20130101; A61K 31/351 20130101; A61K 31/01 20130101;
A61K 35/747 20130101; A61K 31/7036 20130101; A61P 1/12 20180101;
A61K 31/74 20130101; C12N 1/20 20130101; A61K 31/405 20130101; A61P
1/00 20180101; A61K 9/0053 20130101; A61P 1/10 20180101 |
Class at
Publication: |
424/093.45 ;
514/419 |
International
Class: |
A61K 35/74 20060101
A61K035/74; A61K 31/405 20060101 A61K031/405 |
Claims
1. A method of manipulating the rate of gastrointestinal transit in
a mammalian subject, comprising: (a) increasing the rate of
gastrointestinal transit by causing the partial pressure of methane
in the subject's intestines to be decreased; and (b) decreasing the
rate of gastrointestinal transit by causing the partial pressure of
methane in the subject's intestines to be increased.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein performing (a) is accomplished by
administering to the subject's intestinal lumen a selective
inhibitor of methanogenesis.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein performing (a) is accomplished by
administering to the subject's intestinal lumen a
methanogen-displacing probiotic agent.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein performing (a) is accomplished by
administering to the subject's intestinal lumen a prebiotic agent
that inhibits the growth of methanogenic bacteria or promotes the
growth of competing non-methanogenic intestinal flora.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein performing (b) is accomplished by
administering methane gas to the intestinal lumen of the
subject.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein performing (b) is accomplished by
administering a methanogenic probiotic agent to the intestinal
lumen of the subject.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein performing (b) is accomplished by
administering a methanogenesis-enhancing prebiotic agent to the
intestinal lumen of the subject.
8. The method of claim 2, wherein the inhibitor is monensin.
9. Use of a selective inhibitor of methanogensis in the manufacture
of a medicament for the treatment of constipation.
10. The use of claim 9, wherein the inhibitor is monensin.
11. Use of a methanogen-displacing probiotic agent in the
manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of constipation.
12. The use of claim 11, wherein the probiotic agent is selected
from the group consisting of Lactobacillus spp., Bifodobacterium
spp., and Saccharomyces species.
13. Use of a prebiotic agent that inhibits the growth of
methanogenic bacteria or promotes the growth of competing
non-methanogenic intestinal flora in the manufacture of a
medicament for the treatment of constipation.
14. Use of methane or a methane precursor in the manufacture of a
medicament for the treatment of diarrhea.
15. Use of a methane-enhancing probiotic agent in the manufacture
of a medicament for the treatment of diarrhea.
16. Use of a methanogenesis-enhancing prebiotic agent in the
manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of diarrhea.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Discussion of the Related Art
[0001] Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal
disorder seen in more than 15% of the population (1,2).
[0002] Over the last few years, progress has been made in
characterizing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Studies have
demonstrated altered gut motility (3), peripheral (4) and central
(5) sensory dysfunction, as well as an exaggerated response to
stress (6) in this syndrome. However, there is no finding that can
be identified in a majority of patients and by extension, there is
no diagnostic test that is associated with IBS. As a result,
investigators have created complex diagnostic schema such as the
Rome criteria to help diagnose and categorize the syndrome
(7,8).
[0003] One consistent clinical finding in IBS is gas in combination
with bloating and visible distention (9,10). Koide et al. recently
found small intestinal gas to be significantly increased in IBS
compared to controls (11) regardless of whether subjects conform to
diarrhea, constipation or pain subgroups.
[0004] Excessive small intestinal gas can occur as a result of
increased production of gas within the gut by bacterial
fermentation. Hydrogen and methane are common gases excreted during
breath testing (43). Although hydrogen production appears more
ubiquitous, methane production is seen in 36-50% of healthy
subjects (27, 41, 42). In particular, methane is noted to be common
in diverticulosis (25), and less prevalent in diarrheal conditions
such as Crohn's or ulcerative colitis (26-28). Recent data suggests
that children with encopresis have excessive breath methane on
lactulose breath test ("LBT"; 13). This finding has not been
extended to adults with constipation-predominant IBS.
[0005] A condition known to produce excessive small bowel gas is
small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). Small intestinal
bacterial overgrowth is a condition in which the small bowel is
colonized by excessive amounts of upper or lower gastrointestinal
tract flora. Although there are many conditions associated with
SIBO, recent studies have demonstrated an increased prevalence of
SIBO in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (12) and it is a recognized
cause of diarrhea in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (28, 39,
40).
[0006] There is some support for the association between altered
breath testing results and enteric flora in IBS. In one study, 56%
of diarrhea predominant IBS subjects were found to have a positive
.sup.13C-xylose breath test (20). In another study, flagyl was
reported to be superior to placebo in reducing clinical symptoms in
IBS (21). The authors in that paper were uncertain of the mechanism
for this improvement.
[0007] One method of diagnosing SIBO is the lactulose breath test
(LBT) where overgrowth is considered to be present if a greater
than 20 ppm rise in breath hydrogen or methane concentration is
observed within 90 minutes of oral administration of lactulose
(19).
[0008] In a recent study, we suggested that a large percent (78%)
of IBS subjects has SIBO as diagnosed by lactulose breath test
(12). Some workers criticize the reliability of LBT to diagnose
SIBO since in the identification of any infectious process, culture
is the gold standard. The main issue with culture is accessibility.
Riordan, et al. compared breath testing to direct culture and found
the breath test to lack reliability (29). This and other similar
studies were confounded by their selection of subjects who had
surgically altered anatomy predisposing to the development of upper
GI tract. SIBO. Since SIBO (in surgically naive patients) is often
an expansion of colonic bacteria, the direction of expansion is
retrograde involving first the distal small intestine. As such,
direct culture is only practical in the patient whose SIBO is so
severe that the bacteria has expanded proximally into the duodenum
or proximal jejunum.
[0009] Regardless of some skepticism about the reliability of LBT
to diagnose SIBO, there are similarities between SIBO and IBS.
Bloating, a feature of SIBO, is also classically associated with
IBS (10). In SIBO, bloating is due to small intestinal fermentation
of nutrients. Until recently, gas studies in IBS have been limited
to the investigation of flatus. Yet, even these studies suggest the
presence of excessive bacteria in IBS. King, et al found the
production of hydrogen by IBS subjects to be five-fold elevated
implying excessive enteric bacteria (22). Recently, data suggest
that IBS patients have excessive gas and that this gas is localized
to the small intestine (11). However, the contrasting diarrhea and
constipation predominant subgroups in IBS remain unexplained.
[0010] The speed of transit through the small intestine is normally
regulated by inhibitory mechanisms located in the proximal and
distal small intestine known as the jejunal brake and the ileal
brake. Inhibitory feedback is activated to slow transit when end
products of digestion make contact with nutrient sensors of the
small intestine. (E.g., Lin, H. C., U.S. Pat. No. 5,977,175;
Dobson, C. L. et al., The effect of oleic acid on the human ileal
brake and its implications for small intestinal transit of tablet
formulations, Pharm. Res. 16(1):92-96 [1999]; Lin, H. C. et al.,
Intestinal transit is more potently inhibited by fat in the distal
(Ileal brake) than in the proximal (jejunal brake) gut, Dig. Dis.
Sci. 42(1):19-25 [1997]; Lin, H. C. et al, Jejunal brake:
inhibition of intestinal transit by fat in the proximal small
intestine, Dig. Dis. Sci, 41(2):326-29 [1996a]).
[0011] Methane in the intestinal lumen has never before been
reported to affect the rate of gastrointestinal transit.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0012] The present invention relates to a method of manipulating
the rate of gastrointestinal transit in a mammalian subject,
including a human patient. The method involves: (a) increasing the
rate of gastrointestinal transit by causing the partial pressure of
methane in the subject's intestines to be decreased; and (b)
decreasing the rate of gastrointestinal transit by causing the
partial pressure of methane in the subject's intestines, for
example in the distal gut, to be increased.
[0013] Thus, by practicing the inventive method to increase the
rate of gastrointestinal transit, constipation and disorders
exhibiting constipation can be treated in subjects in whom
abnormally elevated intestinal methane levels are detectable (e.g.,
in cases of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome
[IBS], pseudoobstruction, colonic inertia, postoperative ileus,
encopresis, hepatic encephalopathy, or medication-induced
constipation). In accordance with this embodiment of the present
invention, the partial pressure of methane in the subject's
intestines can be decreased by administering to the subject's
intestinal lumen a selective inhibitor of methanogenesis, such as
monensin, or a methanogen-displacing probiotic agent, or a
prebiotic agent that inhibits the growth of methanogenic bacteria
or promotes the growth of competing non-methanogenic intestinal
flora.
[0014] Consequently, the present invention is also directed to the
use in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of
constipation, of a selective inhibitor of methanogenesis, or of a
methanogen-displacing probiotic agent, or of a prebiotic agent that
inhibits the growth of methanogenic bacteria or promotes the growth
of competing non-methanogenic intestinal flora.
[0015] And alternatively, by practicing the inventive method to
decrease the rate of gastrointestinal transit, patients with
diarrhea and disorders exhibiting diarrhea can be treated (e.g.,
cases of diarrhea-predominant IBS, Crohn's disease, ulcerative
colitis, celiac disease, microscopic colitis, dumping syndrome,
rapid transit, short bowel syndrome, post-gastrectomy syndrome,
diabetic diarrhea, hyperemesis, or antibiotic-associated diarrhea).
In accordance with this embodiment of the present invention, the
partial pressure of methane in the subject's intestines can be
increased by administering methane gas to the intestinal lumen of
the subject, for example into the distal segment of the intestine
of the subject, or by administering to the subject a methanogenic
probiotic agent or methogenesis-enhancing prebiotic agent.
[0016] Consequently, the present invention is also directed to the
use in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of
diarrhea, of methane or a methane precursor, or of a methanogenic
or other methane-enhancing probiotic agent, or of a
methogenesis-enhancing prebiotic agent.
[0017] These and other advantages and features of the present
invention will be described more fully in a detailed description of
the preferred embodiments which follows.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TIE DRAWINGS
[0018] FIG. 1 shows a patient flow chart for a double-blind,
randomized, placebo-controlled study confirming that an abnormal
lactulose breath test is more prevalent in IBS than normal
controls, and that antibiotic treatment in IBS leads to an
improvement in symptoms and that this is based on
antibiotic-induced normalization of breath test.
[0019] FIG. 2 shows percent improvement in composite score based on
treatment and success in normalizing the LHBT. Data=mean %
reduction in composite score; the difference in the composite score
was significant (p=0.01, 1-way ANOVA). The difference in patient
reported improvement was also significant (p<0.000001, 1-way
ANOVA). In the neomycin treated groups, the data were analyzed
according to success of treatment. Neo=Neomycin.
[0020] FIG. 3 shows a comparison of percent reported bowel
normalization between and within gender groups; NS=not
significant.
[0021] FIG. 4 show the pattern of gas production with IBS symptom
type, i.e., constipation-predominant IBS (unshaded bars;
p<0.00001) versus diarrhea-predominant IBS (shaded bars;
p<0.001).
[0022] FIG. 5 show the pattern of gas production in IBS patients
(n=65) with respect to symptom severity in those with
constipation-predominant IBS (unshaded bars; p<0.00001) versus
those with diarrhea-predominant IBS (shaded bars;
p<0.00001).
[0023] FIG. 6 illustrates the effect on intestinal transit in dogs
administered 180 ml of room air (circles) or methane gas (squares)
by bolus delivery to the distal gut. Methane slowed intestinal
transit.
[0024] FIG. 7 shows mean diarrhea and constipation severity scores
of all subjects (n=551) with SIBO as a function of the of type of
gas pattern produced on LBT; p<0.00001 for trend in reduction of
diarrhea with the presence of methane (one-way ANOVA); p<0.05
for the trend towards increasing constipation with the presence of
methane (one-way ANOVA).
[0025] FIG. 8 shows mean diarrhea and constipation severity scores
of IBS subjects (n=296) with SIBO as a function of the of type of
gas pattern produced on LBT; p<0.001 for trend in reduction of
diarrhea with the presence of methane (one-way ANOVA); p<0.05
for the trend towards increasing constipation with the presence of
methane (one-way ANOVA).
[0026] FIG. 9 shows mean constipation minus diarrhea (C-D) severity
score for the whole group (n=551) and IBS subjects (n=296) as a
function of the type of gas pattern produced on LBT; p<0.00001
for trend in C-D for whole group (one-way ANOVA); p<0.0001 for
trend in C-D for IBS subjects (one-way ANOVA).
[0027] FIG. 10 shows the percentage of IBS subjects (n=296)
exhibiting each gas pattern who reported constipation vs. diarrhea
predominant symptoms.
[0028] FIG. 11 shows the percentage of subjects with IBD who
produced each of the three abnormal gas patterns on LBT.
[0029] DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0030] In accordance with the present invention, the partial
pressure of methane in the subject's intestines can be decreased by
administering to the subject's intestinal lumen a selective
inhibitor of methanogenesis, such as monensim Useful selective
inhibitors of methanogenesis include HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors
known in the art (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 5,985,907) that selectively
inhibit the growth of methanogenic bacteria without significantly
inhibiting the growth of non-methanogens, for example in the distal
gut or colon of the subject.
[0031] Alternatively, or concurrently, in accordance with the
present invention, the partial pressure of methane in the subject's
intestines can be decreased by administering to the subject's
intestinal lumen a methanogen-displacing probiotic agent to inhibit
the growth of methanogenic bacteria therein, for example, an
inoculum of a lactic acid bacterium, bifidobacterium, or probiotic
Saccharomyces species, e.g., S. cerevisiae. (A. S. Naidu et al.,
Probiotic spectra of lactic acid bacteria, Crit. Rev. Food Sci.
Nutr. 39(1):13-126 [1999]; J. A. Vanderhoof et al. [1998]; G. W.
Tannock, Probiotic propertyies of lactic acid bacteria: plenty of
scope for R & D, Trends Biotechnol. 15(7):270-74 [1997]; S.
Salminen et al., Clinical uses of probiotics for stabilizing the
gut mucosal barrier: successful strains and future challenges,
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 70(2-4):347-58 [1997]; Chaucheyras F. et
al, In vitro H.sub.2 utilization by a ruminal acetogenic bacterium
cultivated alone or in association with an archaea methanogen is
stimulated by a probiotic strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Appl
Environ Microbiol 61(9):3466-7 [1995]). The inoculum is typically
administered in a pharmaceutically acceptable ingestible
formulation, such as in a capsule, or for some subjects, consuming
a food supplemented with the inoculum is effective, for example a
milk, yoghurt, cheese, meat or other fermentable food preparation
Useful probiotic agents include Bifidobacterium sp. or
Lactobacillus species or strains, e.g., L. acidophilus, L.
rhamnosus, L. plantarum, L. reuteri, L. paracasei subsp. paracasei,
or L. casei Shirota, (P. Kontula et al., The effect of lactose
derivatives on intestinal lactic acid bacteria, J. Dairy Sci.
82(2):249-56 [1999]; M. Alander et al., The effect of probiotic
strains on the microbiota of the Simulator of the Human Intestinal
Microbial Ecosystem (SHIME), Int. J. Food Microbiol. 46(l):71-79
[1999]; S. Spanhaak et al., The effect of consumption of milk
fermented by Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota on the intestinal
microflora and immune parameters in humans, Eur. J. Clin Nutr.
52(12):899-907 [1998]; W. P. Charteris et at, Antibiotic
susceptibility of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus species, J.
Food Prot. 61(12):1636-43 [1998]; B. W. Wolf et at, Safety and
tolerance of Lactobacillus reuteri supplementaton to a population
infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, Food Chem. Toxicol.
36(12):1085-94 [1998]; G. Gardiner et al., Development of a
probiotic cheddar cheese containing human-derived Lactobacillus
paracasei strains, Appl. Environ Microbiol. 64(6):2192-99 [1998);
T. Sameshima et al., Effect of intestinal Lactobacillus starter
cultures on the behaviour of Staphylococcus aureus in fermented
sausage, Int. J. Food Microbiol. 41(1):1-7 [1998]).
[0032] Alternatively, or concurrently, in accordance with the
present invention, the partial pressure of methane in the subject's
intestines can be decreased by administering to the subject's
intestinal lumen a prebiotic agent that inhibits the growth of
methanogenic bacteria or promotes the growth of competing
non-methanogenic intestinal flora. (E.g., Tuohy K M et al., The
prebiotic effects of biscuits containing partially hydrolysed guar
gum and fructo-oligosaccharides--a human volunteer study, Br J Nutr
86(3):341-8 [2001]).
[0033] In accordance with the present invention, the partial
pressure of methane in the subject's intestines can be increased by
administering methane to the subject's intestinal lumen.
Accordingly, methane can be administered directly to the intestine
by infusion through a tube, preferably via the rectum, but other
access routes for intubation to the intestine are also useful.
Alternatively, methane can be administered to the intestinal lumen
by providing a medicament comprising a catalyst and chemical
substrate (i.e., a "methane precursor") to the intestinal lumen,
where they come in contact to produce methane in situ. For example,
the catalyst and substrate can be administered in separate control
release tablets, which release their contents in the desired
location in the intestine.
[0034] Alternatively, in accordance with the present invention, the
partial pressure of methane in the subject's intestines can be
increased by administering to the subject's intestinal lumen a
methane-enhancing probiotic agent. A "methane-enhancing" probiotic
agent is one that effectively enhances the partial pressure of
methane in the subject's intestinal lumen. The methane enhancing
probiotic agent can be a methanogenic bacterium, such as
Methanobrevibacter smithii, or certain Bacteroides spp. or
Clostridium spp. (see, e.g., McKay L. F et al., Methane and
hydrogen production by human intestinal anaerobic bacteria, Acta
Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand [B] 90(3):257-60 [1982]), or an
organism that can enhance the growth of intestinal methanogens,
such as Clostridium butyricum.
[0035] Alternatively, or concurrently, in accordance with the
present invention, the partial pressure of methane in the subject's
intestines can be increased by administering to the subject's
intestinal lumen a prebiotic agent that enhances the growth of
methanogenic bacteria.
[0036] As the term is commonly used in the art, the "proximal"
segment of the small bowel, or "proximal gut", comprises
approximately the first half of the small intestine from the
pylorus to the mid-gut. The distal segment, or "distal gut"
includes approximately the second half, from the mid-gut to the
ileal-cecal valve.
[0037] Representative methods of administering include giving,
providing, feeding or force-feeding, dispensing, inserting,
injecting, infusing, perfusing, prescribing, furnishing, treating
with, taking ingesting, swallowing, eating or applying.
Administration of inhibitors, probiotic agents, or prebiotic
agents, is by well known means, including most preferably oral
administration and/or enteral administration.
[0038] Detection of intestinal methane and other gases, while not
essential to the practice of the invention, can be accomplished, if
desired, by any suitable means or method known in the art. For
example, one preferred method is breath testing. (E.g., P. Kerlin
and L. Wong, Breath hydrogen testing in bacterial overgrowth of the
small intestine, Gastroenterol. 95(4):982-88 [1988]; A Strocchi et
al., Detection of malabsorption of low doses of carbohydrate:
accuracy of various breath H.sub.2 criteria, Gastroenterol.
105(5):1404-1410 [1993]; D. de Boissieu et al., [1996]; P. J.
Lewindon et al., Bowel dysfunction in cystic fibrosis: importance
of breath testing, J. Paedatr. Child Health 34(1):79-82 [1998]).
Breath hydrogen or breath methane tests are based on the fact that
many obligately or facultatively fermentative bacteria found in the
gastrointestinal tract produce detectable quantities of hydrogen or
methane gas as fermentation products from a substrate consumed by
the host, under certain circumstances. Substrates include sugars
such as lactulose, xylose, lactose, sucrose, or glucose. The
hydrogen or methane produced in the small intestine then enters the
blood stream of the host and are gradually exhaled.
[0039] Typically, after an overnight fast, the patient swallows a
controlled quantity of a sugar, such as lactulose, xylose, lactose,
or glucose, and breath samples are taken at frequent time
intervals, typically every 10 to 15 minutes for a two- to four-hour
period. Samples are analyzed by gas chromatography or by other
suitable techniques, singly or in combination. A variable fraction
of the population fails to exhale appreciable hydrogen gas during
intestinal fermentation of lactulose; the intestinal microflora of
these individuals instead produce more methane. (G. Corazza et al,
Prevalence and consistency of low breath H.sub.2 excretion
following lactulose ingestion. Possible implications for the
clinical use of the H.sub.2 breath test, Dig. Dis. Sci.
38(11):2010-16 [1993); S. M. Riordan et al, The lactulose breath
hydrogen test and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, Am. J.
Gastroentrol. 91(9);1795-1803 [1996)). A non-digestible substrate
other than lactulose can optionally be used.
[0040] Another useful method of detecting intestinal gases, such as
methane, is by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry and/or
radiation detection to measure breath emissions of isotope-labeled
carbon dioxide, methane, or hydrogen, after administering an
isotope-labeled substrate that is metabolizable by gastrointestinal
bacteria but poorly digestible by the human host, such as
lactulose, xylose, mannitol, or urea. (E.g., G. R. Swart and J. W.
van den Berg, .sup.13C breath test in gastrointestinal practice,
Scand. J. Gastroenterol. [Suppl.] 225:13-18 [1998]; S. F. Dellert
et al., The 13C-xylose breath test for the diagnosis of small bowel
bacterial overgrowth in children, J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr.
25(2):153-58 [1997]; C. E. King and P. P. Toskes, Breath tests in
the diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, Crit. Rev.
Lab. Sci. 21(3):269-81 [1984)). A poorly digestible substrate is
one for which there is a relative or absolute lack of capacity in a
human for absorption thereof or for enzymatic degradation or
catabolism thereof.
[0041] Suitable isotopic labels include .sup.13C or .sup.14C. For
measuring methane or carbon dioxide, suitable isotopic labels can
also include .sup.2H and .sup.3H or .sup.17O and .sup.18O, as long
as the substrate is synthesized with the isotopic label placed in a
metabolically suitable location in the structure of the substrate,
i.e., a location where enzymatic biodegradation by intestinal
microflora results in the isotopic label being sequestered in the
gaseous product. If the isotopic label selected is a radioisotope,
such as .sup.14C, .sup.3H or .sup.15O, breath samples can be
analyzed by gas chromatography with suitable radiation detection
means. (E.g., C. S. Chang et al., Increased accuracy of the
carbon-14 D-xylose breath test in detecting small-intestinal
bacterial overgrowth by correction with the gastric emptying rate,
Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 22(10):1118-22 [1995]; C. E. King and P. P.
Toskes, Comparison of the 1-gram .sup.14C]xylose, 10-gram
lactulose-H.sub.2, and 80-gram glucose-H.sub.2 breath tests in
patients with small intestine bacterial overgrowth, Gastroenterol.
91(6):1447-51 [1986]; A Schneider et al., Value of the
.sup.14C-D-xylose breath test in patients with intestinal bacterial
overgrowth, Digestion 32(2):86-91 [1985]).
[0042] The preceding are merely illustrative and non-exhaustive
examples of methods for detecting small intestinal bacterial
overgrowth.
[0043] The invention will now be described in greater detail by
reference to the following non-limiting examples.
EXAMPLES
Example 1
Methane Excretion on Breath Test has a Positive Predictive Value of
100% for Constipation-Predominant IBS
[0044] In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, we
confirm that an abnormal lactulose breath test is more prevalent in
IBS than normal controls, and that antibiotic treatment in IBS
leads to an improvement in symptoms and that this is based on
antibiotic-induced normalization of breath test. Secondly,
lactulose breath test profiles are evaluated to show that gaseous
constituents vary among IBS subgroups. In this study, we show that
methane excretion on breath test has a positive predictive value of
100% for constipation predominant IBS. This is another important
step in linking SIBO and IBS.
A. Materials and Methods
Study Population
[0045] Study subjects were recruited by advertising in local
newspapers, radio and IBS support groups throughout the greater Los
Angeles are& To avoid referral bias, subjects were not
recruited through the GI motility clinic or any gastroenterology
practice based at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Subjects were
included if they met Rome I criteria for IBS (7). Rome I was chosen
as it does not prejudice between diarrhea and constipation, and no
peer-review publications were available to validate Rome II as a
diagnostic strategy (14). Subjects were excluded if they had
antibiotics within the previous three months, a previous lactulose
breath test (LBT), or a history of diabetes, thyroid disease,
intestinal surgery (except cholecystectomy or appendectomy),
connective tissue disease, narcotic use or known gastrointestinal
disease. Subjects with renal insufficiency, hearing impairment,
probiotic use or allergy to aminoglycosides were also excluded.
Approval from the institutional review board and written informed
consent from the participating subjects were obtained.
[0046] In an initial comparison, 15 sex-matched normal controls
were identified based on the absence of all Rome I criteria. These
subjects underwent lactulose breath testing and the prevalence of
abnormal breath test was compared to subjects with IBS.
Study Design
[0047] Subjects presented to the GI Motility Laboratory having
fasted from 7:00 p.m. the night before. They were instructed not to
ingest legumes or a heavy meal for dinner the night prior to
evaluation. Good oral hygiene was recommended and smoking was not
permitted on the day of testing.
[0048] Prior to the LBT, subjects completed a symptom questionnaire
asking them to grade nine IBS symptoms (abdominal pain, diarrhea,
constipation, bloating, sense of incomplete evacuation, straining,
urgency, mucus and gas) on a severity score of 0-5 as has been
previously used and recommended (15-17). All questions were
answered based on their recall of the preceding 7 days (17).
[0049] Subjects then underwent a LBT by ingesting 10 g of lactulose
(Inalco Spa, Milano, Italy, packaged by Xactdose Inc., South
Beloit, Ill.) followed by 1-2 ounces of water after an initial
baseline breath sample. Breath samples were then collected at 15
minute intervals for 180 minutes. End expiratory breath samples
were taken to ensure alveolar gas sampling. Samples were analyzed
for hydrogen, methane and carbon dioxide using a Model SC, Quintron
gas chromatograph (Quintron Instrument Company, Milwaukee, Wis.).
Carbon dioxide measurements were used to correct for the quality of
alveolar sampling. Measurements were plotted graphically as
previously described (12). Patients and investigators were blinded
to the result of the breath test.
[0050] All subjects were randomized by personnel not associated
with the study to receive, in a double blind fashion, either
neomycin (500 mg) (Teva pharmaceuticals, USA, Sellersville, Pa.) or
matching placebo twice daily for 10 days. Seven days after
completion of the antibiotic or placebo, subjects returned for a
repeat questionnaire and LBT. A seven day follow up was chosen
since in our experience the abnormal breath test in IBS can recur
as early as two weeks after antibiotic normalization. As part of
the follow up questionnaire, subjects were asked to subjectively
rate the amount of improvement they experienced as a percent
normalization of bowel function and repeated their perceived
severity of the 9 bowel symptoms described earlier. Compliance was
assessed by pill count. To comply with institutional review board
requirements, follow-up LBT results could not be blinded so
patients could seek appropriate medical therapy for their test
result.
[0051] At the completion of enrollment, all initial and follow-up
breath tests were coded and randomized by personnel not involved in
the interpretation of the test. A blinded reviewer (M.P.)
interpreted the results and was asked to categorize the breath
tests based on whether the test met the criteria for normal LBT. A
normal LBT was defined as, no rise of breath hydrogen (H.sub.2) or
methane (CH.sub.4) concentration before 90 minutes of lactulose,
with a definitive rise never more than 20 ppm during 180 minutes of
measurement (18, 19, 37, 38). Studies that fell out of this range
were categorized as abnormal. A second set of criteria for breath
test interpretation was also used whereby the traditional 2 peaks
to suggest bacterial overgrowth were required. Since the two peak
method was not well not as well validated a technique (37) as the
parts per million (ppm), this finding was only used to compare the
prevalence of this finding to healthy controls.
Measures of Outcome
[0052] Data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat method. The
primary outcome measure was based on a composite score (CS)
calculated from the 3 main IBS symptoms (abdominal pain, diarrhea
and constipation each on a scale from 0-5) to generate a score out
of 15 (most severe). This was done to account for the severity of
all potential IBS subgroups. Since other IBS symptoms (such as
straining) would worsen or improve depending on whether patients
started with diarrhea or constipation, respectively, minor criteria
were not included in the CS. In addition, as reduction in colonic
organisms could result in an improvement in gas and bloating,
irrespective of bacterial overgrowth, gaseous symptoms too were
excluded from the score. The percent improvement in the CS was then
compared between placebo and neomycin In addition, the overall
percent bowel normalization as determined by patient reporting was
likewise compared.
[0053] The prevalence of a true clinical response was then
determined and compared between placebo and neomycil A true
clinical response was defined as a .gtoreq.50% reduction in CS.
Secondarily, a true clinical response was also assessed based on
subjects reporting their overall percent bowel normalization. A
.gtoreq.50% normalization implied a true clinical response. This
method of analysis closely followed the multinational consensus
recommended guidelines for data analysis in IBS clinical studies
(16).
[0054] Secondary endpoints included a similar analysis of gender
subgroups. Subsequently, IBS subgroups were identified whereby
diarrhea predominant IBS was deemed present when diarrhea severity
(0-5 scale) was greater than constipation in any individual
subject. The opposite proportion determined constipation
predominance. This means of identifying diarrhea and constipation
predominant subgroups was chosen since criteria for these subgroups
are not validated and based subjectively on physician interview
(14). This approach further reduced bias since subjects would not
be aware of the interest in subgrouping their predominant
feature.
[0055] A post hoc analysis was then conducted on all abnormal
breath test results to determine if the type of gas produced on LBT
was related to IBS subgroup. The abnormal breath tests were divided
into two abnormal test groups: hydrogen production only and any
methane production. The relationship between constipation
predominant IBS and diarrhea predominant IBS to the type of gas
seen was determined. Subsequently, in a more objective fashion, the
severity score for diarrhea and constipation were then compared
between gas types. Finally, a score based on the difference between
constipation and diarrhea severity (i.e., constipation score minus
diarrhea score; "C-D") was determined. The C-D was used to examine
the relative weight of constipation to diarrhea in individual
subjects (the more positive the score the greater the dominance the
constipation was compared to diarrhea). Subjects with identical
score for constipation and diarrhea severity were excluded from
these analyses. This C-D score was also compared between gas
types.
[0056] Finally, to support the principal that the abnormal test in
IBS was not due to rapid transit, the mean breath test profile in
constipation and diarrhea predominant IBS was compared. Since it is
suggested in the literature that diarrhea predominant IBS is
associated with rapid transit (34-36) and constipation predominant
IBS with slow transit (34, 35), the hydrogen profile should be
different in both groups.
Statistical Analysis
[0057] The number of subjects enrolled in the study was determined
based on the detection of a 10% difference between placebo and
neomycin This further assumed a 15% variance and an .alpha.=0.05
with power of 90% in a 2-sided analysis.
[0058] Quantitative data were compared using the Student's t-test
with results expressed as mean.+-.S.E. Comparisons of qualitative
data utilized Fisher's Exact Test for comparison of IBS subjects to
healthy controls. All other comparisons of qualitative data
utilized Chi-square. A 1-way ANOVA was used to compare the results
of the 3 groups: placebo treated, neomycin with unsuccessful
normalization of LBT and neomycin treated with successful
normalization of LBT.
B. Results
Subject Demographics
[0059] Two-hundred and thirty-one subjects were screened (FIG. 1).
Of these, 111 met enrollment criteria. However, 10 of these 111
subjects had incomplete data (6 in neomycin group and 4 in placebo
group). The specific reasons for incomplete data were, voluntary
premature withdrawal (n=3), no follow up breath test (n=4), failure
to show up for follow up (n=1), no follow-up questionnaire (n=1)
and premature withdrawal by subject due to severe diarrhea (n=1).
Despite the incomplete data, these subjects were included in the
intention-to-treat analyses and they were counted as no (0%)
improvement. The baseline characteristics were similar for the
neomycin and placebo groups (Table 1, below). TABLE-US-00001 TABLE
1 Comparison of demographics between placebo and neomycin.
Characteristic Placebo Neomycin p-value n 56 55 Age 41.9 .+-. 0.2
44.7 .+-. 0.2 NS Sex (F/M) 27/29 34/21 NS Baseline Composite 8.7
.+-. 0.4 8.8 .+-. 0.3 NS Score Abnormal breath test [n 47 (84) 46
(84) NS (%)] Diarrhea predominant 21 (40)> 25 (48)* NS IBS [n
(%)] Constipation 20 (38)> 18 (35)* NS predominant IBS [n (%)]
Other IBS subgroup [n 11 (21)> 7 (13)* NS (%)] Data are mean
.+-. S.E. Baseline composite score = pain severity + diarrhea score
+ constipation score (each on a scale from 0-5) before treatment.
Other IBS subgroup = subjects with constipation severity = diarrhea
severity. *Only 52 subjects in the neomycin group completed the
questionnaire sufficiently to determine this result. >Only 52
subjects in the placebo group completed the questionnaire
sufficiently to determine this result. NS = not significant.
Case-Control Comparison
[0060] IBS subjects had a higher prevalence of abnormal LBT than
sex-matched controls with 93 out of 111 (84%) subjects f g these
criteria compared to 3 out of 15 (20%) sex-matched controls
(OR=26.2, CI=4.7-103.9, p<0.00001). When comparing the
prevalence of abnormal LBT with double peak, 55 out of 111 IBS
subjects (50%) were positive compared to 2 out of 15 healthy
controls (13%) (p=0.01).
Primary Outcome Measures
[0061] In the intention-to-treat analysis, neomycin resulted in a
35.0.+-.0.7% reduction in CS compared to a 11.4.+-.1.3% reduction
in the placebo group (p<0.05). In the subgroup of patients with
abnormal baseline LBT (n=3), neomycin produced a 35.4.+-.0.8%
reduction in CS versus a 3.7.+-.1.6% reduction in the placebo group
(p<0.01). No difference was seen in subjects with a normal
baseline breath test although a higher placebo rate was reported in
this very small group (51%).
[0062] Ninety-one out of the 111 subjects completed their percent
bowel normalization question after treatment. Of these 91 subjects,
neomycin resulted in a 40.1.+-.5.3% reported bowel normalization
compared to 15.1.+-.3.6% for placebo (p<0.001). Amongst the
subgroup of subjects with abnormal initial breath tests, neomycin
resulted in a 44.8.+-.5.6% normalization compared to 11.0.+-.3.3%
for placebo (p<0.00001).
[0063] Neomycin was more likely to result in a true clinical
response than placebo. Among all subjects receiving neomycin, 24
out of 55 (43%) experienced a .gtoreq.50% improvement in CS versus
13 out of 56 (23%) in the placebo group (OR=4.3, CI=1.05-6.3,
p<0.05). In the subgroup of subjects with abnormal breath tests,
21 out of 46 (46%) receiving neomycin had a clinical response
compared to 7 out of 47 (15%) in the placebo group (OR=4.8,
CI=1.62-14.7, p<0.01). Using patient's subjective report of
percent bowel normalization, in the whole group of subjects who
answered this question (n=91), 50% of subjects receiving neomycin
had a true clinical response in contrast to 17% of subjects getting
placebo (OR=4.8, CI=1.7-14.4, p<0.01). In those with abnormal
initial breath test, 55% of neomycin and 11% of placebo treated
subjects had a true clinical response (OR=9.6, CI=2.5-39.7,
p<0.0001). Finally, 7 out of the 8 subjects (88%) who had a
normal follow up LBT after neomycin reported more than 50%
normalization of bowel function.
[0064] Of the 111 subjects, only the 101 subjects with complete
data were used in the remainder of the analyses.
[0065] Of 84 out of 101 subjects with an abnormal baseline LBT, 41
were treated with neomycin Eight out of 41 (20%) achieved
normalization of LBT. One out of 43 subjects in the placebo group
went from an abnormal breath test to normal. A significant
difference in symptom response was seen depending on the outcome of
treatment in these abnormal subjects. Specifically, the percent
reduction in CS was different in the following 3 groups: subjects
receiving placebo (4.1.+-.11.7%), neomycin-treated group that did
not achieve LBT normalization (34.4.+-.6.2%) and neomycin-treated
group with LBT norm zation (61.7.+-.9.4%) (p=0.01, 1-way ANOVA)
FIG. 2). Using patients self-report of percent bowel normalization,
the 3 groups were more different. Subjects receiving placebo
reported 11.0.+-.3.7% normalization, subjects receiving neomycin
but not successful normalization of LBT, 36.7.+-.6.1% and those
subjects with normal follow up LBT after neomycin reporting
75.0.+-.6.4% bowel normalization (p<0.0000001, 1-way ANOVA).
[0066] Neomycin, although statistically more effective than
placebo, was only able to normalize the breath test 20% of the
time. This may be due to the large numbers and types of enteric
organisms (30-33) or bacterial resistance.
Transit Comparison
[0067] When the mean hydrogen breath test profile was compared
between diarrhea and constipation predominant IBS subjects, there
was no evidence that diarrhea predominance had earlier hydrogen
appearance (data not shown). In fact, diarrhea and constipation
profiles were both virtually superimposable and not different at
any time point with a mean of >20 ppm at 90 minutes in both
groups.
Adverse Events
[0068] One subject developed profuse watery diarrhea while taking
placebo. The cause of the diarrhea was later found to be food
poisoning. Two of the enrolled subjects were found to have other
diagnoses. The first subject had an 8 cm mass in the abdomen. The
surgical specimen demonstrated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This subject
was in the placebo group. The second subject was noted to have
urinary retention, which precipitated bowel complaints. The second
subject was in the neomycin group. Both these subjects had a normal
initial LBT. Both were included as part of the intention-to-treat
analysis.
Effect of Gender
[0069] Both male and female subjects were noted to have a
significantly greater improvement in percent bowel normalization
over placebo (FIG. 3). Furthermore, there was no difference in
response rate between male and female patients.
Type of Gas and IBS Subgroup
[0070] The type of gas produced by IBS subjects on LBT was
predictive of their subtype of IBS amongst the 84 subjects with
abnormal baseline. After exclusion of subjects with no gas
production (n=4) and subjects where constipation severity was equal
to diarrhea (n=15), 34 diarrhea predominant and 31 constipation
predominant IBS subjects were analyzed. Twelve out of 31
constipation-predominant subjects (39%) excreted methane whereas no
methane excretion was seen in the 34 diarrhea predominant subjects
(OR=.infin., CI=3.7-4.3, p<0.001, positive predictive
value=100%) (Table 2, below; and FIG. 4). The severity of
constipation was 4.1.+-.0.3 in subjects with methane excretion but
only 2.3.+-.0.2 in non-methane excretors (p<0.01) (Table 3,
below). In a similar comparison, the C-D was 2.8.+-.0.5 in methane
excretors and -0.7.+-.0.3 for hydrogen excretors (p<0.00001)
(Table 3; and see FIG. 5). TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Comparison of IBS
subgroups based on methane and hydrogen excretion with abnormal
breath test. (n = 65)* Hydrogen Methane Diarrhea 34 0 Constipation
19 12 *After exclusion of subjects with no gas production (n = 4),
normal breath test (n = 17) and subjects where the diarrhea
severity = constipation severity (i.e. neither predominant) (n =
15). P < 0.001 between groups.
[0071] TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Evaluation of the severity of
constipation or diarrhea based on methane production on baseline
breath test. No methane Methane p-value Constipation severity 2.3
.+-. 0.2 4.1 .+-. 0.3 <0.001 Diarrhea severity 3.0 .+-. 0.2 1.4
.+-. 0.4 <0.001 C - D score* -0.7 .+-. 0.3 2.8 .+-. 0.5
<0.00001 *C - D score represents the difference between severity
of constipation and diarrhea. This was done to show an increased
relative weight of constipation to diarrhea with methane
excretors.
[0072] Regardless of any argument as to whether the breath test
reliably detects SIBO or not, the data in this study support a role
of the LBT in IBS treatment as it is only when the subsequent LBT
is normal that the greatest symptom improvements are realized.
[0073] Although the discussion has thus far focused on the abnormal
breath test representing abnormal intestinal flora, another
possible interpretation need to be discussed. The abnormal breath
tests seen in the study could represent rapid transit. Studies have
suggested that small bowel transit is accelerated in diarrhea
predominant IBS (34-36). Similar studies suggest that subjects with
constipation predominant IBS have delayed transit (34, 35). If
transit is the explanation for the abnormal breath test findings
then subjects with constipation predominant IBS should have delayed
gas rise on breath test. On the contrary, in our study, breath
tests were abnormal irrespective of subgroup of IBS suggesting that
transit alone cannot explain the findings. Furthermore, the
clinical improvement in a composite score (consisting of diarrhea,
constipation and abdominal pain) that depends on the normalization
of the LBT cannot be explained on the basis of transit alone.
[0074] In summary, in this double-blind, randomized,
placebo-controlled study, we found a higher prevalence of abnormal
lactulose breath tests in IBS patients than controls, indicative of
SIBO. In addition, we found that antibiotics were more effective
than placebo in terms of symptom improvement and normalization of
the breath test produced an even greater improvement of IBS
symptoms, substantiating results from a previous study (12).
Furthermore, we found that methane excretion on breath testing was
highly associated with the constipation predominant subgroup of
IBS. The ability to identify subgroups of IBS based on LBT further
supports the association between SIBO and IBS. The presence of SIBO
in IBS patients is consistent with the existence of persistent
antigenic challenge in IBS.
Example 2
Administration of Methane to the Distal Gut Slows Gastrointestinal
Transit
[0075] We now show that methane administered directly to the distal
gut produces a slowing of gastrointestinal transit. In dogs
equipped with duodenal (10 cm from pylorus) and mid-gut (160 cm
from pylorus) fistulas, intestinal transit was compared across an
isolated 150 cm test segment (between fistulas) while the proximal
segment of the gut was perfused with pH 7.0 phosphate buffer at 2
mL/min for 90 minutes. Room air (n=three dogs) or methane (n=three
dogs) was delivered into the distal gut as a 180-ml bolus at time
0. Sixty minutes after the start of the perfusion, 20 .mu.Ci of
.sup.99 mTc-DTPA (diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid) was delivered
as a bolus into the proximal segment of the gut. Intestinal transit
was then measured by counting the radioactivity of 1 ml samples
collected every 5 minutes from the diverted output of the mid-gut
fistula.
[0076] Intestinal transit was calculated by determining the area
under the curve (AUC) of the cumulative percent recovery of the
radioactive marker in the control (air administration) and
experimental (methane administration) dogs. The square root values
of the AUC (Sqrt AUC), where 0=no recovery by 30 minutes and
47.4=theoretical, instantaneous complete recovery by time 0, were
compared for the control and experimental animals, using 2-way
repeated measures ANOVA.
[0077] The results shown in FIG. 6, demonstrate that administration
of methane to the distal gut substantially slowed the rate of
intestinal transit in the experimental group, compared to the
control.
Example 3
[0078] The following study confirmed and further investigated the
relationship between gastrointestinal complaints (specifically,
diarrhea and constipation) in IBS-diagnosed subjects with SIBO and
gas excretion on LBT in a large prospectively collected database.
The prevalence of gas excretion patterns in IBS and the
predominantly diarrheal conditions of Crohn's disease and
ulcerative colitis were also compared.
A. Materials and Methods.
Patient Population
[0079] Consecutive patients referred for a lactulose breath test
(LBT) to the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, GI Motility Program from
1998-2000 completed a questionnaire designed to assess bowel
symptoms as previously described (12) after approval from the
institutional review board. Subjects were requested to rate the
severity of nine symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, abdominal pain,
bloating, sense of incomplete evacuation, straining, urgency,
mucus, and gas) on a scale of 0-5, 0 signifying the absence of the
symptom. The questionnaire also inquired whether subjects had
Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Of subjects
reporting a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), only those
whose diagnosis had been confirmed by the Cedars-Sinai Inflammatory
Bowel Disease Center were included in the analysis. The diagnosis
of IBS was identified if subjects fulfilled Rome I criteria (7).
Subjects found to have both IBD and IBS were assigned to the IBD
subgroup.
[0080] Subjects with conditions predisposing to rapid trait (short
bowel syndrome, gastrectomy, etc.), those taking narcotic
medications, and those without evidence of overgrowth on LBT were
excluded.
Lactulose Breath Test (LBT)
[0081] After an overnight fast, subjects completed the
questionnaire. A baseline breath sample was then obtained after
which subjects ingested 10 g of lactulose syrup (Inalco Spa,
Milano, Italy, packaged by Xactdose Inc., South Beloit, Ill.). This
was followed by 1 ounce of sterile water. Breath samples were then
collected every 15 minutes for 180 minutes. Each sample was
analyzed for hydrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide gas
concentration within 15 minutes of collection using a Model SC
Quintron gas chromatograph (Quintron Instrument Company, Milwaukee,
Wis.). CO.sub.2 was analyzed to correct for the quality of the
alveolar sampling.
[0082] Three different abnormal gas patterns were described upon
completion of the test: [0083] 1. Hydrogen positive breath test:
Rise in breath hydrogen concentration of >20 ppm within 90
minutes of lactulose ingestion (18, 19, 37, 38). [0084] 2. Hydrogen
and methane positive breath test: Rise in both breath hydrogen and
methane concentrations of >20 ppm within 90 minutes of lactulose
ingestion. [0085] 3. Methane positive breath test: Rise in breath
methane concentration of >20 ppm within 90 minutes of lactulose
ingestion. Data Analysis
[0086] For all subjects with SIBO, mean diarrhea and constipation
severity scores among the three abnormal gas patterns were
compared.
[0087] Based on symptom severity scores, the entire IBS group was
further subdivided into diarrhea-predominant and
constipation-predominant subgroups. Constipation-predominant IBS
was identified if a subject's severity score exceeded his or her
diarrhea severity score, whereas the reverse applied for
diarrhea-predominant IBS. Subjects who had a constipation severity
score equal to the diarrhea severity score (indeterminate pattern)
were excluded from the IBS subgroup analysis. The percentage of IBS
subjects within each abnormal gas pattern who reported
constipation-predominant or diarrhea-predominant symptoms was
tabulated. The prevalence of methane production between the IBS
subgroups was also compared.
[0088] Subsequently, a mean C-D score was obtained by calculating
the difference between the constipation and diarrhea severity
scores. This was used to examine the relative weight of
constipation to diarrhea in individual subjects. The C-D score was
compared among the three abnormal breath gas patterns in the group
as a whole and among IBS subjects.
[0089] Finally, the prevalence of each of the three abnormal gas
patterns was evaluated in subjects with CD and UC. The prevalence
of methane production was contrasted between subjects with IBS and
IBD.
Statistical Analysis
[0090] A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare symptom severity
scores among the three gas patterns on LBT. Prevalance data was
analyzed with a chi-square test.
B. Results:
Subjects
[0091] At the time of analysis, 772 patients were referred for a
LBT and entered into the database. One hundred eighty-three
subjects with negative breath tests, and 38 subjects either taking
narcotic medications or with conditions predisposing to rapid
transit, were excluded. A total of 551 subjects remained for
analysis. Of these, 78 carried the diagnosis of IBD (49 with CD and
29 with UC) and 296 without IBD fulfilled Rome I criteria for IBS.
Of the subjects with IBS, 120 reported constipation-predominant
symptoms, 111 had diarrhea-predominant symptoms, and 65 had a
constipation severity score equal to the diarrhea severity
score.
Bacterial Overgrowth Analysis
[0092] When the entire group of subjects with SIBO was evaluated
(n=551), the diarrhea severity scores differed significantly among
the three abnormal breath test patterns (one-way ANOVA,
p<0.00001) FIG. 7). Subjects who excreted methane reported
significantly lower diarrhea severity scores than those who
produced hydrogen only. Constipation severity also differed
significantly among the breath test patterns (p<0.05), with
higher severity scores reported by subjects who produced
methane.
[0093] Among all IBS subjects (n=296), diarrhea severity scores
also differed similarly (one-way ANOVA, p<0.001) with lower
severity reported by those who produced methane than those who
produced hydrogen gas alone (FIG. 8).
[0094] When the C-D score was evaluated as a reflection of the
degree of constipation with respect to diarrhea, the effect of
methane was even more obvious (FIG. 9). In both the total group and
the IBS subjects, constipation was by far the prevailing symptom in
individuals, whereas diarrhea was the prevailing symptom in
subjects with only hydrogen.
[0095] When IBS subgroups were compared, constipation-predominant
IBS was reported by 91 (37%) of the hydrogen-excreting subjects, 23
(52.3%) of the hydrogen and methane-excreting subjects and 6 (100%)
of the methane-excreting subjects. By contrast,
diarrhea-predominant IBS was observed in 105 (42.7%) of the
hydrogen excretors, 6 (13.6%) of the hydrogen and methane
excretors, and none of the methane excretors FIG. 10).
Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Methane
[0096] The predominant gas excreted by patients with IBD was
hydrogen alone, detected in 47 of 49 subjects (95.9%) with Crohn's
disease and 29 of 29 (100%) subjects (100%) with ulcerative
colitis. (FIG. 11).
Methane Production Between Subjects with IBS and IBD
[0097] The percentage of subjects with IBS who produced each of the
three gas patterns was tabulated. Of 296 IBS subjects, 246 (83.1%)
produced hydrogen gas alone, 44 (14.9%) produced hydrogen and
methane gas, and 6 (2.0%) produced methane gas alone. Methane
production depended significantly upon whether or not subjects had
IBS or IBD. IBS subjects were more likely to produce methane gases
than subjects with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease (OR 7.7,
CI 1.8 - 47.0, p<0.01) (Table 4). TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4
Comparison of prevalence of methane to non-methane gas production
between subjects with IBS and IBD. Disease Type CH4 Non-CH4 IBS (n
= 296) 50 246 UC or CD (n = 82) 2 76 Chi square 9.4, OR 7.7, CI
1.8-47.0, p-value <0.01
REFERENCES CITED
[0098] 1. Drossman D A, Sandler R S, McKee D L, Lovitz A J. Bowel
patterns among subjects not seeking health care. Gastroenterology
1982;83:529-34. [0099] 2. Thompson W G, Heaton K W. Functional
bowel disorders in apparently healthy people. Gastroenterology
1980;79:283-8. [0100] 3. Kumar D, Wingate D L. The irritable bowel
syndrome: a paroxysmal motor disorder. Lancet 1985;2:973-77. [0101]
4. Grundy D. Mechanisms for the symptoms of irritable bowel
disease-possible role of vagal afferents. ID, Neurogastroenterology
from the Basics to the Clinics. H-J Krammer and M V Singer,
Editors, Klumer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2000, pp. 659-663.
[0102] 5. Silverman D H S, Munakata J A, Ennes H, Mandelkern M A,
Hoh C K, Mayer E A. Regional cerebral activity in normal and
pathological perception of visceral pain Gastroenterology 1997;
112:64-72. [0103] 6. Whitehead W E, Crowell M D, Robinson J C,
Heller B R, Schuster M M. Effects of stressful life events on bowel
symptoms: Subjects with irritable bowel syndrome compared with
subjects without bowel dysfunction. Gut 1992;33:825-30. [0104] 7.
Drossman D A, Richter J E, et al., eds. Functional gastrointestinal
disorders: diagnosis, pathophysiology and treatment: a
multinational consensus. Boston: Little, Brown, 1994. [0105] 8.
Thompson W G, Longstreth G F, Drossman D A, Heaton K W, Irvine E J,
Muller-Lissner S A. Functional bowel disorders and functional
abdominal pain Rome II: A multinational consensus document on
functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gut 1999;45: 114347. [0106]
9. Kruis W, Thieme C H, Weinzierl M, Schussler P, Holl J, Paulus W.
A diagnostic score for the irritable bowel syndrome.
Gastroenterology 1984;87:1-7. [0107] 10. Sullivan S N. A
prospective study of unexplained visible abdominal bloating. N Z
Med J 1994;107:428-30. [0108] 11. Koide A, Yamaguchi T, Odaka T, et
al. Quantitative analysis of bowel gas using plain abdominal
radiograph in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Am J
Gastroenterol 2000;95:1735-41. [0109] 12. Pimentel M, Chow E J, Lin
H C. Eradication of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth reduces
symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastro 2000;95:3503-6.
[0110] 13. Fiedorek S C, Pumphrey C L, Casteel H B. Breath methane
production in children with constipation and encoparesis. J Pediatr
Gastroenterol 1990;10:473-77. [0111] 14. Fass R, Longstreth G F,
Pimentel M, Fullerton S, Russak S M, Chiou C-F, Reyes E, Crane P,
Eisen G, McCarberg B, Ofman J. Evidence and consensus-based
practice guidelines for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome.
Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2081-8. [0112] 15. Veldhuyzen Van Zanten S
J O, Talley N J, Bytzer P, Klein K B, Whorwell P J, Zinsmeister A
R. Design of treatment trials for functional gastrointestinal
disorders. Gut 1999;45:f169-77. [0113] 16. Whitehead W E,
Corazziari E, Prizont R, Senior J R, Thompson W G, Veldhuyzen Van
Zanten S J O. Definition of a responder in clinical trials for
functional gastrointestinal disorders: report on a symposium Gut
1999;45(Suppl II):II78-9. [0114] 17. Camilleri M, Northcutt A R,
Kong S, Dukes G E, McSorley D, Mangel A W. Efficacy and safety of
alosetron in women with irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized,
placebo-controlled trial Lancet 2000;355:1035-40. [0115] 18. Bond J
H Jr., Levitt M D. Investigation of small bowel transit time in man
utilizing pulmonary hydrogen (H2) measurements. J Lab Clin Med
1975;85:546-555. [0116] 19. Joseph F Jr, Rosenberg A J. Breath
testing: diseased versus normal patients. J Pediatr Gastroenterol
1988;7:787-8. [0117] 20. Galatola G, Grosso M, Barlotta A, et al.
Diagnosis of bacterial contamination of the small intestine using
the 1 g [14C] xylose breath test in various gastrointestinal
diseases. Menerva Gastroenterologic Dietologica 1991;37:169-75.
[0118] 21. Nayak A, Karnad D, Abraham P, Mistry F P. Metronidazole
relieves symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome: the confusion with
so-called `chronic amebiasis`. Indian J Gastroenterol
1997;16:137-9. [0119] 22. King T S, Elia M, Hunter J O. Abnormal
colonic fermentation in irritable bowel syndrome. Lancet
1998;352:1187-9. [0120] 23. Neal K R, Hebden J, Spiller R
Prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms six months after bacterial
gastroenteritis and risk factors for development of the irritable
bowel syndrome: postal survey of patients. BMJ 1997;314:779-82.
[0121] 24. Collins S M, Barbara G, Vallance B. Stress, inflammation
and the irritable bowel syndrome. Canadian Journal of
Gastroenterology 1999;13:47A-49A. [0122] 25. Weaver G A, Krause J
A, Miller T L, Wollin M J. Incidence of methanogenic bacteria in a
sigmoidoscopy population: an association of methanogenic bacteria
and diverticulosis. Gut 1986;27:698-704. [0123] 26. Bjorneklett A,
Fausa O, Midtvedt T. Bacterial overgrowth in jejunal and ileal
disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1983;18:289-98. [0124] 27. McKay L
F, Eastwood M A, Brydon W G. Methane excretion in man-a study of
breath, flatus and faeces. Gut 1985;26:69-74. [0125] 28.
Castiglione F, Blanco G D V, Rispo A, et al. Orocecal transit time
and bacterial overgrowth in patients with Crohn's disease. J Clin
Gastroenterol 2000;31:63-66. [0126] 29. Riordan S M, McIvor C J,
Walker B M, Duncombe V M, Bolin T D, Thomas M C. The lactulose
hydrogen breath test and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Am
J Gastroenterol 1996;91:1795-1803. [0127] 30. Bentley D W, Nichols
R L, Condon R E, Gorbach S L. The microflora of the human ileum and
intrabdominal colon: results of direct needle aspiration at surgery
and evaluation of the technique. J Lab Clin Med 1972;79:421-9.
[0128] 31. Gorbach S L. Intestinal Microflora. Gastroenterology
1971;60:1110-29. [0129] 32. Nichols R L, Condon R E, Bentley D W,
Gorbach S L. Ileal microflora in surgical patients. J Urol
1971;105:351-3. [0130] 33. Plaut A G, Gorbach S L, Nahas L,
Weinstein L, Spanknebel G, Levitan R Studies of intestinal
microflora. 3. The microbial flora of human small intestinal mucosa
and fluids. Gastroenterology 1967;53:868-73. [0131] 34. Cann P A,
Read N W, Brown C, Hobson N, Holdsworth C D. Irritable bowel
syndrome: relationship of disorders in the transit of a single
solid meal to symptom patterns. Gut 1983;24:405-11. [0132] 35. Read
N W, Al-Janabi M N, Hogate A M, Barber D S, Edwards C A.
Simultaneous measurement of gastric emptying, small bowel residence
and colonic filling of a solid meal by the use of the gamma camera.
Gut 1986;27:300-8. [0133] 36. Hutchinson R, Notghi A, Smith N B,
Harding L K, Kumar D. Scintigraphic measurement of ileocaecal
transit in irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic
constipation. Gut 1995;36:585-9. [0134] 37. Rhodes J M, Middleton
P, Jewel D P. The lactulose hydrogen breath test as a diagnostic
test for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Scand I
Gastroenterol 1979;14:333-6. [0135] 38. Kerlin P, Wong L. Breath
hydrogen testing in bacterial overgrowth of the small intestine.
Gastroenterol 1988;95:982-8. [0136] 39. Rutgeerts P, Ghoos Y,
Vantrappen G, Eyssen H. Ileal dysfunction and bacterial overgrowth
in patients with Crohn's disease. European J Clin Invest 1981; 11:
199-206. [0137] 40. Funayama Y, Sasaki I, Naito H, et al.
Monitoring and antibacterial treatment for postoperative bacterial
overgrowth in Crohn's disease. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum
1999;42:1072-7. [0138] 41. Peled Y, Weinberg D, Hallak A, et al.
Factors affective methane production in humans. Gastrointestinal
diseases and alterations of colonic flora. Dig Dis Sci
1987;32:267-71. [0139] 42. Melcher E A, Levitt M D, Slavin J L.
Methane production and bowel function parameters in healthy
subjects on low- and high fiber diets. Nutrition and Cancer
1991;16:85-92. [0140] 43. Levitt M D, Ingelfinger F J. Hydrogen and
methane production in man Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences. 1968;150:75-81.
* * * * *