Lactose Breath Test: Possible Strategies to Optimize Test Performance, Accuracy, and Clinical Impact
Giulia Scalese,Alessandra Cesarini,Lucia Pallotta,Emanuela Ribichini,Luca Spina,Maddalena Diofebi,Anna Citarella,Simona Cammarota,Carola Severi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16203516
IF: 5.9
2024-10-18
Nutrients
Abstract:Lactose malabsorption (LM) refers to the incomplete absorption of lactose in the small intestine, resulting in the arrival of ingested lactose in the colon, which can give rise to symptoms defined as lactose intolerance (LI). The lactose breath test (LBT), thanks to its low cost, availability, and noninvasiveness, is the most used diagnostic method. However, the LBT is a tedious tool, requiring prolonged involvement of patients, qualified staff, and infrastructure, of which the most time-consuming factor is the frequency and number of breath samples needed. Objectives: To simplify the current LBT methodology, compliant with the current guidelines' statements, by reducing the test duration or the number of breath samples, without compromising the test's accuracy. Methods: The results of the standard LBT were compared with two simplified tests: a "shortened" test, lasting three hours, with samples taken every 30 min; and a "five-sample" test, lasting four hours, with samples taken every hour. Patients were stratified into three grades of malabsorption (mild, moderate, severe) based on the amount of gas exhaled. A clinical severity score was introduced to assess the clinical relevance of LI using a specific questionnaire. Results: Among the 543 patients enrolled (F 71.5%, mean age 43.7 ± 17.6 yrs), 60.4% (328/543) tested positive for LM. A total of 70.5% (383/543) presented LI, with 32.1% of those being true intolerants (LI without LM). The shortened test demonstrated an accuracy of 93.9%, with a sensitivity of 89.9% and a false negative rate of 10.1% (33/328). The five-sample test showed higher accuracy and sensitivity than the shortened test (96.5% and 94.2%, respectively; p = 0.03) with a false negative rate of 5.8% (19/328). Of the 19 false negatives in the five-sample test, 95% (18/19) were categorized as mild malabsorbents. No statistical correlation was found between the clinical severity score and LBT results. Conclusions: The five-sample test, involving hourly breath measurements, is a reliable option for simplifying the LBT without significantly reducing the procedure's sensitivity.
nutrition & dietetics