4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Ability of the normal human small intestine to absorb fructose: Evaluation by breath testing

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 5, 期 8, 页码 959-963

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.04.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR000059, RR00059] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK057100, R01 DK 57100-05, R01 DK057100-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Fructose consumption is increasing, and its malabsorption causes common gastrointestinal symptoms. Because its absorption capacity is poorly understood, there is no standard method of assessing fructose absorption. We performed a dose-response study of fructose absorption in healthy subjects to develop a breath test to distinguish normal from abnormal fructose absorption capacity. Methods: In a double-blind study, 20 healthy subjects received 10% solutions of 15, 25, and 50 g of fructose and 33% solution of 50-g fructose on 4 separate days at weekly intervals. Breath samples were assessed for hydrogen (H-2) and methane (CH4) during a period of 5 hours, and symptoms were recorded. Results: No subject tested positive with 15 g. Two (10%) tested positive with 25 g fructose but were asymptomatic. Sixteen (80%) tested positive with 50 g (10% solution), and 11 (55%) had symptoms. Breath H-2 was elevated in 13 (65%), CH4 in 1 (5%), and both in 2 (10%). Twelve (60%) tested positive with 50 g (33% solution), and 9 (45%) experienced symptoms. The area under the curve for H-2 and CH4 was higher (P < .01) with 50 g compared with lower doses. There were no gender differences. Conclusions: Healthy subjects have the capacity to absorb up to 25 g fructose, whereas many exhibit malabsorption and intolerance with 50 g fructose. Hence, we recommend 25 g as the dose for testing subjects with suspected fructose malabsorption. Breath samples measured for H-2 and CH4 concentration at 30-minute intervals and for 3 hours will detect most subjects with fructose malabsorption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据