4.7 Editorial Material

Bacterial Overgrowth and Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Unifying Hypothesis or a Spurious Consequence of Proton Pump Inhibitors?

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 103, Issue 12, Pages 2972-2976

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01992.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [1 R24 AT002681, R24 AT002681, R24 AT002681-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR046122, AR46122-01, R01 AR046122-01] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [P30 DK041301, P50 DK064539, P50 DK064539-019001, P50 DK64539, 2P30DK 041301-17, P30 DK041301-17] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Some studies indicate that small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), as measured by hydrogen breath tests (HBT), is more prevalent in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) vs. matched controls without IBS. Although the data are conflicting, this observation has led to the hypothesis that SIBO may be a primary cause of IBS. Yet, it remains unclear whether SIBO is truly fundamental to the pathophysiology of IBS, or is instead a mere epiphenomenon or bystander of something else altogether. We hypothesize that SIBO might be a byproduct of the disproportionate use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in IBS, as follows: (1) IBS patients are more likely than controls to receive PPI therapy; (2) PPI therapy may promote varying forms of SIBO by eliminating gastric acid; and (3) existing studies linking SIBO to IBS have not adjusted for or excluded the use of PPI therapy. When linked together, these premises form the basis for a simple and testable hypothesis: the relationship between SIBO and IBS may be confounded by PPIs. Our article explores these premises, lays out the argument supporting this PPI hypothesis, discusses potential implications, and outlines next steps to further investigate this possibility. (Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:2972-2976).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available