Screening and therapy for malnutrition and related gastro-intestinal disorders in systemic sclerosis: recommendations of a North American expert panel.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a set of recommendations for clinicians caring for patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) to guide their approach to the patient with malnutrition and possible malabsorption. METHODS: The Canadian Scleroderma Research Group convened a meeting of experts in the areas of nutrition, speech pathology, oral health in SSc, SSc and gastroenterology to discuss the nutrition-GI paradigm in SSc. This meeting generated a set of recommendations based on expert opinion. RESULTS: Physicians should screen ALL patients with SSc for malnutrition. The physician should ask a series of questions that pertain to GI involvement. Patients who screen positive for malnutrition should be referred to a dietitian and gastroenterologist. Referral to a patient support group should be considered and if screening reveals oral health problems, referral to a dentist, preferably with expertise in treating patients with SSc, should be done. All SSc patients should weigh themselves monthly and report any sudden significant changes in weight. They should be assessed by a rheumatologist once a year for signs of malnutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Malnutrition may be common in SSc and a multidisciplinary approach is important.

Differential impact of lactose/lactase phenotype on colonic microflora.

BACKGROUND: The ability to digest lactose divides the world's population into two phenotypes that may be risk variability markers for several diseases. Prebiotic effects likely favour lactose maldigesters who experience lactose spilling into their colon. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of fixed-dose lactose solutions on fecal bifidobacteria and lactobacilli in digesters and maldigesters, and to determine whether the concept of a difference in ability to digest lactose is supported. METHODS: A four-week study was performed in 23 lactose maldigesters and 18 digesters. Following two weeks of dairy food withdrawal, subjects ingested 25 g of lactose twice a day for two weeks. Stool bifidobacteria and lactobacilli counts pre- and postintervention were measured as the primary outcome. For secondary outcomes, total anaerobes, Enterobacteriaceae, beta-galactosidase and N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase activity in stool, as well as breath hydrogen and symptoms following lactose challenge tests, were measured. RESULTS: Lactose maldigesters had a mean change difference (0.72 log10 colony forming unitsg stool; P=0.04) in bifidobacteria counts compared with lactose digesters. Lactobacilli counts were increased, but not significantly. Nevertheless, reduced breath hydrogen after lactose ingestion correlated with lactobacilli (r=-0.5; P<0.001). Reduced total breath hydrogen and symptom scorestogether, with a rise in fecal enzymes after intervention, were appropriate, but not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite failure to achieve full colonic adaptation, the present study provided evidence for a differential impact of lactose on microflora depending on genetic lactase status. A prebiotic effect was evident in lactose maldigesters but not in lactose digesters. This may play a role in modifying the mechanisms of certain disease risks related to dairy food consumption between the two phenotypes.

Lack of effect of lactose digestion status on baseline fecal micoflora.

BACKGROUND: The genetics of intestinal lactase divide the world's population into two phenotypes: the ability (a dominant trait) or inability (a recessive trait) to digest lactose. A prebiotic effect of lactose may impact the colonic flora of these phenotypes differently. OBJECTIVE: To detect and evaluate the effects of lactose on subjects divided according to their ability to digest lactose. METHODS: A total of 57 healthy maldigesters (n=30) and digesters (n=27) completed diet questionnaires, genetic and breath hydrogen testing, and quantitative stool analysis for species of bacteria. Log10 transformation of bacterial counts was compared with lactose intake in both groups using multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: There was a significant relationship between genetic and breath hydrogen tests. Daily lactose intake was marginally lower in lactose maldigesters (median [interquartile range] 12.2 g [31 g] versus 15 g [29.6 g], respectively). There was no relationship between lactose intake and breath hydrogen tests in either group. There were no differences in bacterial counts between the two groups, nor was there a relationship between bacterial counts and lactose intake in either group. CONCLUSION: The differential bacterial effects of lactose were not quantitatively detected in stool samples taken in the present study.