Search

Abstract Background Food malabsorption and intolerance is implicated in gastrointestinal symptoms among patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Key triggers include fructose and fructan. Prior studies examined fructose and fructan malabsorption separately in IBS patients. None have concurrently assessed both within the same patient group. We aimed to investigate the association between fructose and fructan malabsorption in the same patients with IBS using hydrogen breath testing (HBT). Methods We retrospectively identified patients with IBS who underwent fructose and fructan HBTs and abstracted their results from the electronic medical record. Fructose and fructan HBTs were performed by administering a 25 g fructose solution or 10 g fructan solution, followed by breath hydrogen readings every 30 min for 3 h. Patients were positive for fructose or fructan malabsorption if breath hydrogen levels exceeded 20 ppm. Results Of 186 IBS patients, 71 (38.2%) were positive for fructose malabsorption and 91 (48.9%) were positive for fructan malabsorption. Of these patients, 42 (22.6%) were positive for fructose malabsorption and fructan malabsorption. Positive fructose HBT readings were significantly associated with positive fructan HBT readings (p = 0.0283). Patients positive for fructose malabsorption or fructan malabsorption had 1.951 times higher odds of testing positive for the other carbohydrate. Conclusions Our results reveal a clinically significant association between fructose malabsorption and fructan malabsorption in patients with IBS. Fructan malabsorption should be assessed in patients with fructose malabsorption, and vice versa. Further studies are required to identify the mechanisms underlying our findings.

Abstract Background First-line treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) includes monotherapy with proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), food elimination diet (FED), or topical corticosteroids. Current guidelines suggest patients with EoE should continue any responsive first-line monotherapies. However, the efficacy of FED monotherapy in patients with EoE responsive to PPI monotherapy has not been well studied. Our study aimed to investigate how attempting FED monotherapy after experiencing remission of EoE after PPI monotherapy influenced long-term EoE management. Methods We retrospectively identified patients with EoE responsive to PPI monotherapy who trialed FED monotherapy. We then employed a mixed method approach to a prospective cohort. Selected patients were observed long term for quantitative outcomes, while qualitative results were obtained from patient surveys regarding their perspectives on the trial of FED monotherapy. Results We identified 22 patients who trialed FED monotherapy after experiencing remission of EoE following PPI monotherapy. Of these 22 patients, 13 had remission of EoE with FED monotherapy, while 9 had re-activation of EoE. Out of 22 patients, 15 were enrolled in a cohort for observation. No exacerbations of EoE occurred while on maintenance treatment. Most patients stated that they would recommend this process to others with EoE (93.33%) and that trial of FED monotherapy helped them identify a treatment plan that aligned with their lifestyle (80%). Conclusion Our work shows that FED monotherapy can be an effective alternative for patients with EoE responsive to PPI monotherapy that may improve patient quality of life, suggesting alternative treatment options should be considered for monotherapy-responsive EoE.

Background and Aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an antigen-mediated inflammatory esophageal disease that is commonly treated with high-dose proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), topical corticosteroids, or food elimination diet (FED) monotherapy. Combination treatment has not been well studied in the management of EoE. We aimed to determine if PPI and FED combination therapy was able to induce histologic remission in patients with EoE refractory to monotherapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study identifying patients with EoE that was refractory to PPI monotherapy and FED monotherapy but histologically responsive to PPI and FED combination therapy. We also identified symptom changes through chart review. Results: Out of 405 EoE patients, 12 patients were identified with EoE that was refractory to PPI monotherapy and FED monotherapy but histologically responsive to PPI and FED combination therapy. Out of 12 patients, 11 (91.67%) noted resolution of symptoms while on combination therapy. Comparative analysis of peak eosinophil counts showed that patients achieved a median of 4.5 eos/hpf (interquartile range [IQR], 2–6.5), which was significantly decreased compared to baseline (median, 45; IQR, 35.5–50; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < .001), PPI monotherapy (median, 41; IQR, 26–50; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < .001), and FED monotherapy (median, 45; IQR, 17–67.5; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < .001). Conclusion: Our work shows that patients with EoE refractory to PPI monotherapy and FED monotherapy can successfully achieve histologic remission and symptom benefit with PPI and FED combination therapy. Therefore, combination therapy should be considered a viable option for patients with EoE who fail treatment with first-line monotherapies.