
==== Front
Adv Lab Med
Adv Lab Med
almed
almed
Advances in Laboratory Medicine
2628-491X
De Gruyter

almed-2024-0115
10.1515/almed-2024-0115
Article
Detection capacity of small intestine bacterial or methanogen overgrowth by lactose and fructose breath testing in the adult population
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9039-7667
Laserna Mendieta Emilio José ejlaserna@sescam.jccm.es

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6839-2707
Martín Dominguez Verónica
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9143-7715
Pérez Lucendo Irene
Granero Cremades Inmaculada
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8203-1449
Ferreirós Martínez Raquel
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0713-4285
Álvarez Malé Tomás
Sanz De Benito María Ángeles
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5492-2535
Santander Cecilio
Gastroenterology Research Unit, Hospital General de Tomelloso, Tomelloso, Ciudad Real, Spain
Service of Clinical Laboratory, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Castilla-La Mancha (IDISCAM), Toledo, Spain
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Madrid, Spain
Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
Department of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Corresponding author: Emilio José Laserna Mendieta, Gastroenterology Research Unit, Hospital General de Tomelloso, Vereda de Socuéllamos s/n, CP: 13700, Tomelloso, Ciudad Real, Spain; Service of Clinical Laboratory, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Princesa, Madrid, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Castilla-La Mancha (IDISCAM), Toledo, Spain; and Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Madrid, Spain, E-mail: ejlaserna@sescam.jccm.es
9 8 2024
9 2024
5 3 327332
13 3 2024
1 5 2024
© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
2024
the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston GmbH, Berlin/Boston
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract

Objectives

Exhaled breath tests (BTs) are the main diagnostic method for fructose and lactose malabsorption/intolerance (FI and LI, respectively) and for detecting small intestine bacterial or methanogen overgrowth (SIBO/IMO). Although FI/LI-BTs may provide evidence of the presence of SIBO/IMO, there is limited literature evaluating their reliability for this purpose. The objective of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of FI/LI-BTs in detecting SIBO and their concordance with SIBO-BTs in the identification of IMO.

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, FI/LI-BTs and SIBO-BTs performed in the same patients within a period of 6 weeks were selected from 652 gas chromatography-based BTs.

Results

A total of 146 BTs from 67 eligible adult patients were identified. LI-BTs had higher specificity than FI-BT in detecting SIBO (93.8 % vs. 72.7 %). In contrast, FI-BTs showed higher sensitivity (60.0 % vs. 28.6 %) as FI was more frequently established in SIBO-positive patients (70 % vs. 29 %). With regard to IMO, concordance with LI-BT was 100 %, with a 27 % of false negatives on FI-BTs.

Conclusions

Findings suggestive of SIBO or IMO on LI-BTs were highly consistent with those of SIBO-BTs. In contrast, the rate of false positives for SIBO and the rate of false negative for IMO on FI-BTs was 27 % in both cases.

Keywords

fructose malabsorption/intolerance
lactose malabsorption/intolerance
small intestine bacterial overgrowth
intestinal methanogenic overgrowth
exhaled breath test
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is a functional bowel disorder characterized by excessive proliferation of bacterial microbiome in the small intestine. Manifestations of this entity include bloating, flatulence, abdominal pain and diarrhea or constipation [1, 2]. These symptoms can be due to abnormal intestinal permeability and motility, a higher level of inflammation or immune activation, malabsorption of nutrients or fermentation of substrates in the small bowel [3].

In some cases, this overgrowth may be caused by intestinal methanogen overgrowth (IMO) [4]. These methanogenic organisms, primarily Methanobrevibacter smithii [5] are not bacteria but archaea. Hence a different term has been suggested to refer to their overgrowth [1]. IMO has been associated with constipation, due to the inhibitory effect of methane (CH4) on intestinal peristalsis [6]. A large retrospective study demonstrated that IMO is a different entity from SIBO and that excessive CH4 production is more frequent in elderly patients. The study also revealed that malabsorption of nutrients such as vitamin B12 is less frequent in IMO [7]. Additionally, a different antibiotic treatment is indicated for IMO. The combination of neomycin and rifaximin has been proven to be more effective in IMO patients than rifaximin alone, the treatment indicated for SIBO [8, 9].

The gold standard diagnostic study for SIBO is jejunal aspirate culture. However, its use is challenging, as it is an expensive invasive test and a standard cut-off of colony-forming units per ml has not yet been established [3]. Hence, the most widely used study for testing suspected SIBO or IMO is exhaled breath testing (BT). BT is a low priced, non-invasive, easy-to-use test that is widely available in a large number of laboratories. This test measures hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), and carbon dioxide (CO2), with the latter being used as a correction factor and to verify correct sample collection.

A variety of guidelines and consensus documents are available for the correct performance of BTs, including preparation instructions for patients undergoing a BT. The most relevant guidelines are the American [10] and the European [11]. However, these guidelines use different cut off points for the interpretation of SIBO-BT. Whereas the American guideline establish a rise in H2 of ≥20 parts per million (ppm) from baseline at 90 min, the European guideline only establish early elevation of H2≥10–12 ppm from baseline, without providing any time interval. The American guideline further suggest that CH4 elevation (≥10 ppm) indicates the presence of IMO, whereas this aspect is not mentioned in the European guideline. The most widely recommended substrate is 50–75 g of glucose or 10–20 g of lactulose. Of note, another substrate similar to lactulose is used in Spain, lactitol. These substrates are widely used for diagnosis of SIBO, as they both are nonabsorbable sugars. A recent meta-analysis revealed a slightly higher diagnostic performance for glucose, as compared to lactulose [12].

As any other test, BTs also have some limitations such as it being an indirect measurement method. In addition, accelerated/reduced orocecal transit (due to physiological factors, previous surgery, use of drugs, and/or diseases) can interfere with results. Other limitations include its lack of correlation with the results of small bowel aspirate culture [13]. In addition, since methanogenic archaea use H2 as a substrate for CH4 production, the levels of H2 are usually low in the presence of IMO; therefore, it is critical that the instruments used to measure exhaled breath gases in BTs also measure CH4 concentration [14].

On another note, malabsorption/intolerance to carbohydrates such as fructose (FI) or lactose (LI) can be related to the presence of SIBO and mimic its symptoms, as SIBO can reduce their absorption due to abnormal villi function and/or destruction of intestinal mucosal enzymes [15, 16]. Thus, FI/LI-BTs are frequently requested for patients with suspected SIBO/IMO. FI/LI-BTs may provide evidence suggestive of SIBO or IMO in the form of early H2 elevation or high CH4 concentrations [17].

Although the American consensus guideline recommend SIBO-BTs to be performed prior to carbohydrate malabsorption/intolerance BTs [10], for practical reasons, and due to the non specificity of symptoms, several BTs are often requested in the same medical consultation. Understanding the concordance between FI/LI-BTs and SIBO-BTs would be useful to avoid repeated BTs, recurrent consultations and delayed diagnosis, thereby reducing costs. However, little attention has been paid to this issue, with most studies having focused on positive cases for FI/LI that could be secondary to SIBO [18, 19].

The objective of this study was to examine whether findings suggestive of SIBO and IMO on FI/LI-BTs in the adult population were consistent with the results of SIBO-BTs. This study will extend knowledge on the sensitivity and specificity of FI/LI-BTs in detecting SIBO and their concordance in identifying IMO.

Materials and methods

Patients

A retrospective observational study was performed to analyze the results of the BTs carried out in routine practice at Hospital Universitario La Princesa (HULP) between February 2020 and April 2023 (n=652). The study sample was composed of BTs administered to the same patients within a maximum period of 6 weeks (42 days), with no changes of treatment between the different BTs. The minimum period between BTs was 1 week, as specified in the instructions provided to patients undergoing more than one BT. All BTs were performed in adults older than 16 years.

Data included sex, age at first BT, type of BT performed, time interval (in days) between the first and the last BT, and result of the BT. BTs were excluded from final analysis when results were interpreted by the specialist to be due to poor preparation for BT (upon observation of high baseline values of H2 and/or CH4 followed by low values in subsequent time points) [20], or when results were associated with incorrect sample collection (levels of CO2<2 %).

Patient data was anonymized and extracted solely from the Laboratory Information System. In compliance with current laws and regulations and with the Declaration of Helsinki, clinical records were not inspected.

Breath testing method

BTs were supplied by Isomed Pharma SL (Madrid, Spain) and involved the collection of a baseline sample of exhaled breath and the ingestion of the following substrates: 25 g of fructose (for FI), 25 g of lactose (for LI) and 10 g of lactitol (for SIBO). Then, a sample of exhaled breath was collected at intervals of 25 min for 175 min (8 samples in total). The study sample included both BTs performed by patients at home (following written instructions provided by a healthcare professional) and BTs carried out in the hospital with monitoring by nursing staff.

Levels of H2, CH4 and CO2 in the exhaled air tubes were measured on a BreathTracker SC gas chromatograph (QuinTron, Milwaukee, WI, USA) available at HULP. The measurement range was 2–150 ppm for H2; 2–75 ppm for CH4; and 0.1–7.0 % for CO2. A value of CO2 of 5.5 % was used as a correction factor for H2 and CH4 concentrations, which were calculated automatically by the analyzer. A gas with a known concentration supplied by Isomed Pharma SL was used for calibration and quality controls of the chromatograph.

Interpretation of BTs and analysis of concordance

BT results were interpreted in accordance with clinical guidelines, with some modifications [10, 11]. A FI/LI-BT was considered to be suggestive of SIBO when an increase of ≥20 ppm of H2 from baseline was observed at 90 min (in our case, at 75 min, which corresponds to the fourth sample collection). Results were suggestive of IMO when CH4 values were ≥10 ppm (in our case, when this condition was fulfilled for all time points). The same criteria were applied to identify a positive result for SIBO and IMO on a SIBO-BT. When IMO was identified, SIBO-BTs were not included in the analysis of concordance for the detection of SIBO. The reason is the influence that CH4 has in H2 concentration, as it is the substrate used to produce CH4, and hence, flat curves of H2 were obtained in most cases of IMO [4]. In parallel, FI/LI-BTs were considered positive for FI/LI when an increase of ≥20 ppm of H2 or ≥10 ppm of CH4 was observed with respect to baseline in at least one point of the curve, following the recommendations of the two clinical guidelines.

When a test was positive both on SIBO-BT and FI/LI-BTs, then carbohydrate malabsorption/intolerance could be secondary to the presence of SIBO. The percentage of these cases with respect to the total number of positive results for SIBO was calculated. Malabsorption was separated from intolerance using the validated scale developed by Casellas et al., which includes five symptoms (diarrhea, abdominal cramping, vomiting, audible bowel sounds and flatulence or gas) rated on a 10-point scale according to their intensity. A total score of ≥7 points indicates intolerance, whereas a lower total score indicates malabsorption [21].

To assess concordance between FI/LI-BT and SIBO-BT in detecting SIBO, contingency tables were constructed to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CI) using the GraphPad Prism version 5.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, EEUU). The percentage of coincidence was calculated to assess the level of concordance between FI/LI-BT and SIBO-BT in detecting IMO.

Results

Demographic data and characteristics of BTs

Of the 652 BTs performed at our hospital during the study period, 146 were eligible and corresponded to 67 SIBO-BTs, 47 FI-BTs, and 32 LI-BTs. These BTs were performed in 67 patients, of whom 82 % were female, with a mean age of 47.8 ± 16.9 years (range 17.7–85.6).

Figure 1 details the types of BTs performed and the time intervals between tests. The majority of patients (52 %) underwent a FI-BT and a SIBO-BT, whereas only 18 % underwent the three types of BTs. The most frequent time interval between BTs was 1 week (58 %), followed by 2 weeks (24 %) and 3–6 weeks (18 %).

Figure 1: Characteristics of exhaled breath tests (BTs) included in the final analysis according to the type of BT: fructose intolerance (FI); lactose intolerance (LI); or small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), and time period between the first and the last BT performed in the same patient.

In total, 52.9 % of patients with a positive FI-BT also showed intolerance, with this percentage rising to 77.8 % in patients with a positive LI-BT.

Concordance between FI/LI-BTs and SIBO-BT in detecting SIBO

To evaluate the capacity of FI/LI-BTs to detect SIBO, a comparative study was performed from the results of 32 FI-BTs and 23 LI-BTs.

The sensitivity of FI-BTs was 60.0 % (CI: 26.2–87.8 %) with a specificity of 72.7 % (CI: 49.8–89.3 %), a PPV of 50.0 % (CI: 21.1–78.9 %) and a NPV of 80.0 % (CI: 56.3–94.3 %) (Table 1). Hence, SIBO-BT was negative in 27.3 % of FI-BTs suggestive of SIBO. Seven of the 10 patients with SIBO also had a positive result for FI.

Table 1: Contingency table displaying the results obtained for patients who underwent exhaled breath tests for fructose intolerance (FI-BT) and bacterial overgrowth (SIBO-BT).

	Positive SIBO-BT	Negative SIBO-BT	Total	
FI-BT suggestive of SIBO	6	6	12	
FI-BT not suggestive of SIBO	4	16	20	
Total	10	22	32	

The number of false positives was lower (6.2 %) in LI-BTs, which indicates a higher specificity. The results of this comparative study are shown in Table 2, reporting a sensitivity of 28.6 % (CI: 3.7–71.0 %), a specificity of 93.8 % (CI: 69.8–99.8 %), a PPV of 66.7 % (CI: 9.4–99.2 %) and a NPV of 75.0 % (CI: 50.9–91.3 %). Of the seven patients with SIBO, only two had a positive LI-BT.

Table 2: Contingency table displaying the results obtained for patients who underwent exhaled breath tests for lactose intolerance (LI-BT) and bacterial overgrowth (SIBO-BT).

	Positive SIBO-BT	Negative SIBO-BT	Total	
LI-BT suggestive of SIBO	2	1	3	
LI-BT not suggestive of SIBO	5	15	20	
Total	7	16	23	

A summary of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV values for the detection of SIBO in FI/LI-BTs is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the detection of small intestine bacterial overgrowth by exhaled breath testing (BT) for fructose and lactose intolerance. Values between brackets represent 95 % confidence intervals.

	Fructose BT	Lactose BT	
Sensitivity	60.0 % (26.2–87.8 %)	28.6 % (3.7–71.0 %)	
Specificity	72.7 % (49.8–89.3 %)	93.8 % (69.8–99.8 %)	
Positive predictive value	50.0 % (21.1–78.9 %)	66.7 % (9.4–99.2 %)	
Negative predictive value	80.0 % (56.3–94.3 %)	75.0 % (50.9–91.3 %)	

Of the patients included for these analyses, only eight underwent the three tests. In six of these patients, the level of concordance among the three tests was 100 %. In two patients, H2 elevation on the FI-BTs was detected at 50 min, which suggested the presence of SIBO. In contrast, the SIBO-BT was negative, which was in agreement with the results of LI-BTs.

Concordance between FI/LI-BTs and SIBO-BTs in detecting IMO

In 20 patients, the SIBO-BT suggested the presence of IMO. A total of 15 and 9 FI-BTs and LI-BTs were available for comparison, respectively, as four of these patients underwent both FI-BT and LI-BT. SIBO-BT was positive for IMO in all cases with a FI/LI-BT suggestive of IMO (Table 4).

Table 4: Concordance between the results obtained in the exhaled breath test for fructose (FI-BT) and lactose (LI-BT) intolerance in patients who underwent a breath test for bacterial overgrowth (SIBO-BT) for evaluating intestinal methanogenic overgrowth (IMO).

	Positive SIBO-BT for IMO	Negative SIBO-BT for IMO	Concordance	
FI-BT suggestive of IMO	11	0	43/47 (91,5 %)	
FI-BT not suggestive of IMO	4	32	
LI-BT suggestive of IMO	9	0	32/32 (100 %)	
LI-BT not suggestive of IMO	0	23	

The level of concordance for the evaluation of IMO was 100 % for LI-BT and 91.5 % for FI-BT, as the latter did not detect 4 cases of IMO, thereby yielding a rate of false negatives of 27 %. In the four patients who underwent the two tests, both FI-BTs and LI-BTs detected the IMO.

Discussion

BTs are a useful tool to evaluate functional disorders in patients with non-specific gastrointestinal symptoms such as bloating, abdominal pain or flatulence, due to their low cost and simplicity [11]. A study in 1,230 patients in whom underlying gastrointestinal disease had been excluded endoscopically and radiologically, revealed that 45 % had SIBO, FI and/or LI, which were detected by BTs [22].

This study contributes relevant evidence to the limited literature available on findings suggestive of SIBO on FI/LI-BTs. Additionally, this is the first study to provide data on the concordance of these tests in detecting the presence of IMO. The rate of false positives for SIBO on FI-BTs was 27 %. False positives were defined as early H2 elevations suggestive of SIBO, which were not confirmed by SIBO-BT with lactitol. In contrast, the rate of false positives on LI-BTs was as low as 6 %, which indicated a high specificity. LI-BT also provided optimal results for the detection of IMO, with a level of concordance of 100 %. In contrast, the rate of false negatives for FI-BTs was 27 %.

IMO can be currently identified with gas chromatographs with capacity to measure both CH4 and H2. The prevalence of IMO could be 30–60 % of all overgrowths when tested by BT [23]. In our center, IMO accounted for 57 % of all overgrowths detected using this method [24]. According to our experience, when lactitol is used as a substrate, IMO manifests as a plateau where CH4 is elevated at baseline, with values ≥10 ppm at all points of the BT curve. In contrast, the American guideline, which are based on lactulose or glucose, defined a positive test for IMO as CH4 ≥10 ppm at any point of the curve [10]. On the other hand, the European guideline did not include any recommendation for the detection of IMO [11]. With lactitol, CH4 rises in parallel to H2. As a result, CH4 is frequently ≥10 ppm at 100 min or later. Our interpretation is consistent with that of a recent study that revealed a high sensitivity (86 %) and specificity (100 %) in detecting IMO in patients with baseline samples containing CH4≥10 ppm, as measured by glucose and lactulose SIBO-BT [25].

This is not only the first study to evaluate the concordance between FI-/LI-BTs and SIBO-BTs in detecting IMO. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate in an accurate and precise way the performance of FI-/LI-BTs in detecting SIBO. A previous study already identified SIBO as a factor that increased the probability of LI in patients with chronic diarrhea, although a thorough comparative study was not performed [26]. Previous studies only revealed a higher percentage of positive results for LI or sorbitol intolerance – but not for FI – when patients were found to be positive on SIBO-BT [18]. Evidence has also been provided that SIBO was a frequent condition (75 %) causing LI solely detected by BTs but not by oral lactose tolerance test [19]. According to an Asian study, the prevalence of LI secondary to SIBO was 15 % [27], a slightly lower percentage to that observed in our study (29 %). Finally, a recent study reported a higher percentage of cases of SIBO (28 % vs. 7 % in controls) in patients with lactase deficiency confirmed by biopsy [28]. Our study provides novel data on FI suspected to be secondary to SIBO, with a prevalence of 70 %, or the lower rate of false positives (6 %) between LI-BTs and SIBO-BTs in relation to SIBO, as compared to FI-BTs (27 %).

The main strengths of this study are that it is based on BTs performed over a 3-year period using the same gas chromatograph and in patients in whom different BTs were carried out in a short period of time. A limitation of this study is that H2 elevation may be secondary to an accelerated intestinal transit. However, this disorder would affect SIBO-BT and FI/LI-BTs results equally. Additionally, the use of lactitol and exhaled breath sampling every 25 min for the SIBO-BT (which hinders measuring gases at 90 min) do not fully align with the recommendations of the American or European guidelines [10, 11]. As it occurs in most centers, duodenal aspirate cultures were not performed in routine practice; therefore, SIBO-BT results could not be compared against those of this gold standard test. The results reported are applicable to comparative studies of FI/LI-BTs and SIBO-BTs when lactitol is used as substrate. Studies with a larger number of patients and using other substrates (glucose or lactulose) are needed to confirm our findings. The production of hydrogen sulfide was not measured either, and it could be the cause of the presence of flat curves without H2 or CH4 elevation in five patients, which were interpreted as negative for SIBO and IMO.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that detection of SIBO or IMO in LI-BT has a high level of concordance with SIBO-BT results. This means that SIBO-BT would not be necessary, which would ultimately prevent delayed diagnosis and treatment. In contrast, FI-BT showed a lower level of concordance with SIBO-BT, as 27 % of cases of detected SIBO will be false positives, and IMO would not be identified in another 27 %. These results highlight the need for highly-trained professionals in the optimal interpretation of BTs. This added to an adequate indication would ensure correct diagnosis and effective treatment, jointly with improved cost-effectiveness of these tests.

Acknowledgments

Emilio José Laserna Mendieta received a Juan Rodés grant from the Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII), belonging to the Ministry of Health, Consumption and Social Welfare, and co-financed by the social funds of the European Union (period 2014–2020). The authors thank all the nursing staff and laboratory technicians involved in performing the exhaled breath tests for their work.

Research ethics: Not applicable.

Informed consent: Not applicable.

Author contributions: EJLM: conceptualization, formal analysis, research, methodology, supervision, first draft, writing (review and editing), VMD: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, IPL: formal analysis, RFM: formal analysis, IGC: formal analysis, TAM: formal analysis, MASB: supervision, CS: supervision, writing (review and editing), All authors have accepted responsibility for the content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.

Research funding: None declared.

Data availability: The raw data can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.

Article Note: The original article can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1515/almed-2024-0040.
==== Refs
References

1. Pimentel M Saad RJ Long MD Rao SSC ACG clinical guideline: small intestinal bacterial overgrowth Am J Gastroenterol 2020 115 165 78 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000501 32023228
2. Martín Domínguez V Malagelada C Santander C Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. A position paper of ASENEM-SEPD Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2023 115 679 81 10.17235/reed.2023.10027/2023 37982553
3. Bushyhead D Quigley EM Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2021 50 463 74 10.1016/j.gtc.2021.02.008 34024452
4. Hoegenauer C Hammer HF Mahnert A Moissl-Eichinger C Methanogenic archaea in the human gastrointestinal tract Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022 19 805 13 10.1038/s41575-022-00673-z 36050385
5. Ghoshal U Shukla R Srivastava D Ghoshal UC Irritable bowel syndrome, particularly the constipation-predominant form, involves an increase in methanobrevibacter smithii, which is associated with higher methane production Gut Liver 2016 10 932 8 10.5009/gnl15588 27458176
6. Kunkel D Basseri RJ Makhani MD Chong K Chang C Pimentel M Methane on breath testing is associated with constipation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Dig Dis Sci 2011 56 1612 8 10.1007/s10620-011-1590-5 21286935
7. Madigan KE Bundy R Weinberg RB Distinctive clinical correlates of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth with methanogens Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc 2022 20 1598 605.e2 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.09.035
8. Low K Hwang L Hua J Zhu A Morales W Pimentel M A combination of rifaximin and neomycin is most effective in treating irritable bowel syndrome patients with methane on lactulose breath test J Clin Gastroenterol 2010 44 547 50 10.1097/mcg.0b013e3181c64c90 19996983
9. Pimentel M Chang C Chua KS Mirocha J DiBaise J Rao S Antibiotic treatment of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome Dig Dis Sci 2014 59 1278 85 10.1007/s10620-014-3157-8 24788320
10. Rezaie A Buresi M Lembo A Lin H McCallum R Rao S Hydrogen and methane-based breath testing in gastrointestinal disorders: the north American consensus Am J Gastroenterol 2017 112 775 84 10.1038/ajg.2017.46 28323273
11. Hammer HF Fox MR Keller J Salvatore S Basilisco G Hammer J European guideline on indications, performance, and clinical impact of hydrogen and methane breath tests in adult and pediatric patients: European association for gastroenterology, endoscopy and nutrition, European society of neurogastroenterology and motility, and European society for paediatric gastroenterology hepatology and nutrition consensus United Eur Gastroenterol J 2022 10 15 40 10.1002/ueg2.12133
12. Losurdo G Leandro G Ierardi E Perri F Barone M Principi M Breath tests for the non-invasive diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: a systematic review with meta-analysis J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2020 26 16 28 10.5056/jnm19113 31743632
13. Lim J Rezaie A Pros and cons of breath testing for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth and intestinal methanogen overgrowth Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023 19 140 6
14. de Lacy Costello BPJ Ledochowski M Ratcliffe NM The importance of methane breath testing: a review J Breath Res 2013 7 024001 10.1088/1752-7155/7/2/024001 23470880
15. Szilagyi A Ishayek N Lactose intolerance, dairy avoidance, and treatment options Nutrients 2018 10 1994 10.3390/nu10121994 30558337
16. Benardout M Le Gresley A ElShaer A Wren SP Fructose malabsorption: causes, diagnosis and treatment Br J Nutr 2022 127 481 9 10.1017/s0007114521001215 33818329
17. Ghafoor A Karunaratne T Rao SSC Bacterial overgrowth and lactose intolerance: how to best assess Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2022 25 334 40 10.1097/mco.0000000000000861 35838278
18. Perets TT Hamouda D Layfer O Ashorov O Boltin D Levy S Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth may increase the likelihood of lactose and sorbitol but not fructose intolerance false positive diagnosis Ann Clin Lab Sci 2017 47 447 51 28801371
19. Varjú P Ystad B Gede N Hegyi P Pécsi D Czimmer J The role of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth and false positive diagnosis of lactose intolerance in southwest Hungary-A retrospective observational study PLoS One 2020 15 e0230784 10.1371/journal.pone.0230784 32384113
20. Massey BT Wald A Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth syndrome: a guide for the appropriate use of breath testing Dig Dis Sci 2021 66 338 47 10.1007/s10620-020-06623-6 33037967
21. Casellas F Varela E Aparici A Casaus M Rodríguez P Development, validation, and applicability of a symptoms questionnaire for lactose malabsorption screening Dig Dis Sci 2009 54 1059 65 10.1007/s10620-008-0443-3 18716868
22. Amieva-Balmori M Coss-Adame E Rao NS Dávalos-Pantoja BM Rao SSC Diagnostic utility of carbohydrate breath tests for SIBO, fructose, and lactose intolerance Dig Dis Sci 2020 65 1405 13 10.1007/s10620-019-05889-9 31617133
23. Triantafyllou K Chang C Pimentel M Methanogens, methane and gastrointestinal motility J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014 20 31 40 10.5056/jnm.2014.20.1.31 24466443
24. Laserna-Mendieta EJ Martín-Dominguez V Ferreirós-Martínez R Pérez-Lucendo I Granero-Cremades I Alvárez-Malé T 126 – Sobrecrecimiento intestinal por microbiota metanogénica: estudio observacional en práctica clínica habitual Gastroenterología y Hepatología [Internet] Madrid Elsevier 2022 [citado 4 de octubre de 2023] 1 45
25. Takakura W Pimentel M Rao S Villanueva-Millan MJ Chang C Morales W A single fasting exhaled methane level correlates with fecal methanogen load, clinical symptoms and accurately detects intestinal methanogen overgrowth Am J Gastroenterol 2022 117 470 7 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001607 35041624
26. Zhao J Fox M Cong Y Chu H Shang Y Fried M Lactose intolerance in patients with chronic functional diarrhoea: the role of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010 31 892 900 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04252.x 20132150
27. Wang Y Xiong L Gong X Li W Zhang X Chen M Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth as an uncommon cause of false positive lactose hydrogen breath test among patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome in Asia J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015 30 995 1000 10.1111/jgh.12862 25470082
28. Jo IH Paik CN Kim YJ Lee JM Choi SY Hong KP Lactase deficiency diagnosed by endoscopic biopsy-based method is associated with positivity to glucose breath test J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2023 29 85 93 10.5056/jnm22023 36606439
