4.3 Article

IgG and IgG4 antibodies in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: a case control study in the general population

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-12-166

关键词

Human; Adult; Irritable bowel syndrome; Cross-sectional studies; Diet; Gastrointestinal tract; Immunoglobulin G; Food Hypersensitivity

资金

  1. Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation through the Norwegian Asthma and Allergy Association
  2. Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation through the Norwegian Asthma and Allergy Association, Norway
  3. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics AS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) often relate their symptoms to the intake of food and modify their diet. IgE-mediated food allergy is uncommon in IBS, but the role of IgG-mediated food hypersensitivity remains inconclusive. The primary aim of this study was to compare food- and yeast-specific IgG and IgG4 antibodies in subjects with and without IBS. Methods: This was a case control study in the general population for which subjects completed questionnaires about abdominal complaints and their intake of common food items. Blood samples were collected, and food- and yeast-specific IgG and IgG4 antibodies were measured. Antibodies were measured in mg/L. Results: We included 269 subjects with IBS and 277 control subjects. After correction for subject characteristics and diet, there were no significant differences with regard to food- and yeast-specific IgG and IgG4 antibodies between subjects with IBS and controls. Lower values of IgG antibodies against egg (OR 0.99 (0.98 to 1.00), p = 0.002) and beef (OR 0.75 (0.60 to 0.94), p = 0.012) and higher values of IgG antibodies against chicken (OR 1.14 (1.03 to 1.27), p = 0.009) were associated with more severe symptoms. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that IgG-and IgG4-mediated food and yeast hypersensitivity in IBS is unlikely. IgG antibodies against food and yeast may reflect the diet.

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

4.3
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