Inverse dose effect of pretest dietary lactose intake on breath hydrogen results and symptoms in lactase nonpersistent subjects

Lactose Intolerance, Dairy Avoidance, and Treatment Options

Lactose intolerance refers to symptoms related to the consumption of lactose-containing dairy foods, which are the most common source for this disaccharide. While four causes are described, the most common is the genetically-determined adult onset lactose maldigestion due to loss of intestinal lactase governed by control of the gene by a 14,000 kb promoter region on chromosome 2. Gastrointestinal symptoms from lactose have expanded to include systemic effects and have also been confounded by other food intolerances or functional gastrointestinal disorders. Partly because lactose maldigestion is often interpreted as lactose intolerance (symptoms), focus of therapy for these symptoms starts with lactose restriction. However, withholding of dairy foods completely is not appropriate due to a more favorable impact on health. Industrial efforts to substitute with plant-based products is not completely successful at this time. This narrative article reviews the complexities of the perception of lactose intolerance, its epidemiology, and pathogenesis. Treatments are discussed, including the inappropriateness of dairy avoidance. In conjunction, effects of dairy products on 19 common diseases are reviewed. Different methods of treatment, lactose-reduced products, plant-based dairy substitutes, adaptation, prebiotics, exogenous lactase, probiotics, and some other dietary interventions are further discussed.

Adult lactose digestion status and effects on disease

BACKGROUND

Adult assimilation of lactose divides humans into dominant lactase-persistent and recessive nonpersistent phenotypes.

OBJECTIVES

To review three medical parameters of lactose digestion, namely: the changing concept of lactose intolerance; the possible impact on diseases of microbial adaptation in lactase-nonpersistent populations; and the possibility that the evolution of lactase has influenced some disease pattern distributions.

METHODS

A PubMed, Google Scholar and manual review of articles were used to provide a narrative review of the topic.

RESULTS

The concept of lactose intolerance is changing and merging with food intolerances. Microbial adaptation to regular lactose consumption in lactase-nonpersistent individuals is supported by limited evidence. There is evidence suggestive of a relationship among geographical distributions of latitude, sunhine exposure and lactase proportional distributions worldwide.

DISCUSSION

The definition of lactose intolerance has shifted away from association with lactose maldigestion. Lactose sensitivity is described equally in lactose digesters and maldigesters. The important medical consequence of withholding dairy foods could have a detrimental impact on several diseases; in addition, microbial adaptation in lactase-nonpersistent populations may alter risk for some diseases. There is suggestive evidence that the emergence of lactase persistence, together with human migrations before and after the emergence of lactase persistence, have impacted modern-day diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Lactose maldigestion and lactose intolerance are not synonymous. Withholding dairy foods is a poor method to treat lactose intolerance. Further epidemiological work could shed light on the possible effects of microbial adaptation in lactose maldigesters. The evolutionary impact of lactase may be still ongoing.

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.

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.

Lactose malabsorption and intolerance: a systematic review on the diagnostic value of gastrointestinal symptoms and self-reported milk intolerance

BACKGROUND

When lactose malabsorption gives rise to symptoms, the result is called 'lactose intolerance'. Although lactose intolerance is often bothersome for patients, once recognized it may be managed by simple dietary adjustments. However, diagnosing lactose intolerance is not straightforward, especially in primary care.

AIM

To summarize available evidence on the diagnostic performance of gastrointestinal symptoms and self-reported milk (lactose) intolerance in primary care, and the relationship between lactose malabsorption and intolerance.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE and reference screening.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were selected if the design was a primary diagnostic study; the patients were adults consulting because of non-acute abdominal symptoms; the diagnostic test included gastrointestinal symptoms and/or self-reported milk intolerance. A total of 26 primary diagnostic studies were included in the review.

DATA EXTRACTION

Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. They adhered to the most recent guidelines for conducting a diagnostic review as described in the Cochrane Diagnostic Reviewers' Handbook.

RESULTS

The diagnostic performance of diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating, flatulence and self-reported milk intolerance was highly variable. A non-Caucasian ethnic origin was associated with the presence of lactose malabsorption. Both lactose malabsorbers and lactose absorbers reported symptoms during the lactose hydrogen breath test.

CONCLUSION

Our review shows that high-quality studies on the diagnosis of lactose malabsorption and intolerance in primary care are urgently needed. An important prerequisite would be to clearly define the concept of lactose intolerance, as well as how it should be assessed.

The molecular basis of lactose intolerance

A staggering 4000 million people cannot digest lactose, the sugar in milk, properly. All mammals, apart from white Northern Europeans and few tribes in Africa and Asia, lose most of their lactase, the enzyme that cleaves lactose into galactose and glucose, after weaning. Lactose intolerance causes gut and a range of systemic symptoms, though the threshold to lactose varies considerably between ethnic groups and individuals within a group. The molecular basis of inherited hypolactasia has yet to be identified, though two polymorphisms in the introns of a helicase upstream from the lactase gene correlate closely with hypolactasia, and thus lactose intolerance. The symptoms of lactose intolerance are caused by gases and toxins produced by anaerobic bacteria in the large intestine. Bacterial toxins may play a key role in several other diseases, such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and some cancers. The problem of lactose intolerance has been exacerbated because of the addition of products containing lactose to various foods and drinks without being on the label. Lactose intolerance fits exactly the illness that Charles Darwin suffered from for over 40 years, and yet was never diagnosed. Darwin missed something else--the key to our own evolution--the Rubicon some 300 million years ago that produced lactose and lactase in sufficient amounts to be susceptible to natural selection.

Fructose malabsorption may be gender dependent and fails to show compensation by colonic adaptation

Fructose malabsorption is linked to gastrointestinal and other unusual symptoms. Polymers of fructose are also recognized prebiotics. While some prebiotics can self-adapt when consumed regularly (resulting in decreased breath hydrogen and symptoms), we wondered whether self-adaptation occurs with basic fructose. We evaluated 90 subjects (61 females). Each completed a diet questionnaire and underwent a fructose challenge. Breath hydrogen and quantified symptom scores were recorded. Group comparisons for sum of breath hydrogen and total symptom scores were evaluated with the Mann-Whitney U test. Spearman's correlation coefficient and chi(2) or Fisher's exact test were used as appropriate. Malabsorption occurred in 29 patients (32.2%) and low-grade symptoms without malabsorption in 30 (33%). Women complained of symptoms more frequently (p = 0.04) and exhibited more fructose malabsorption (p = 0.0527). Breath hydrogen correlated with symptoms (r = 0.516, p = 0.0037). Adaptation with increasing pretest fructose intake was absent. We conclude that gender may influence fructose malabsorption and there is no adaptation to regular consumption.

Evaluation of relationships among national colorectal cancer mortality rates, genetic lactase non-persistence status, and per capita yearly milk and milk product consumption

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of mortality in Western countries. Its putative pathogenesis revolves around genetic and environmental factors, particularly diet. One of the most studied dietary factors, dairy product intake, is still debated as a protective agent. The role of lactose as a candidate prebiotic (stimulating lactic acid bacteria) and its relation to genetic lactase non-persistence (LNP) status has not been evaluated. We undertook a review and analysis of national per capita dairy product consumption, national LNP prevalence, and national CRC mortality rates (CRCM) to determine whether relationships existed among these variables. Data on these three items were obtained from the available literature. A negative binomial regression model was used to compare national LNP status with national CRCM rates for three time periods. Pearson correlation was used to compare national per capita dairy food intake with national CRCM rates for the approximate midpoint time period of reviewed articles. We found that there was a significant positive correlation between per capita dairy food intake and CRCM rates. However, there was also a significant negative correlation between national LNP prevalence and CRCM rates. Population-based studies supported the suggestion that in both homogeneous high and homogeneous low prevalence LNP countries characterized by low and high dairy food intake respectively, dairy food consumption exerted a protective effect against CRC and CRCM rate. Because some population studies contradict the hypotheses that dairy food intake promotes CRC or that LNP status protects against CRC, we hypothesize that dairy food consumption may operate by two distinct mechanisms--one that operates at low doses in LNP subjects and another in high doses in non-LNP subjects.

The effect of lactose maldigestion on the relationship between dairy food intake and colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Dairy food consumption has been inconsistently shown to protect against colorectal cancer (CRC) in case-based studies, and no clear benefits against recurrent colonic polyps (CRP) have been reported. Based on population-based studies we have hypothesized that dairy food intake may have anti-CRC effects at both low intake lactase non-persistent (LNP) populations and at high intake lactase persistent (LP) subjects. We separately analyse existing case-based studies and divide origins into high LNP (>or= 80% LNP prevalence), low LNP (prevalence <or= 20%) and mid LNP countries (21-79% prevalence), which coincide with low, high, and mid quantity dairy food intake regions, respectively. Odds ratios and relative risks (RR) of highest versus lowest dairy intake within each group are analyzed together for assessment of protection against CRC and CRP. Eighty studies met stipulated criteria. Thirteen analyzed the effect on recurrent polyps. Forest plots from 2 regions, high LNP (low dairy food intake) RR = 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73-0.97) and low LNP (high dairy food intake) RR = 0.80 (95% CI = 0.73-0.88) demonstrated significant protection against CRC. In mixed LNP/LP populations (mid dairy food intake) nonsignificant protection was found RR = 0.92 (95% CI = 0.79-1.06). Similar regional analysis for CRP failed to show significant protective effect in any region. This meta-analysis supports that the highest level of dairy food consumption protects subjects in both high and low LNP regions but not in areas with significant mixed LNP/LP populations. In both groups, dairy foods had no effect on polyp formation, suggesting it may only protect against CRC at late stages of promotion. These results raise the possibility that LNP/LP status may be partly responsible for the discrepant results with respect to the relationship between dairy food consumption and CRC.

Comparison of a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for lactase genetic polymorphism with standard indirect tests for lactose maldigestion

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is a discrepancy in outcome between the lactose tolerance and breath hydrogen tests for lactose maldigestion. The availability of a validated genetic test for lactase polymorphism allows a reevaluation of these tests.

METHODS

Thirty healthy adults participated in a 50-g lactose challenge test at a university clinic. Blood was drawn for genetic and timed blood glucose testing (2 hours), and breath hydrogen was measured (4.5 hours). Lactase genetic polymorphism was assessed by a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay. Participants completed a diet questionnaire, and symptoms were recorded during the lactose challenge. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each indirect test. The 2-way kappa coefficient between these tests was evaluated. Student t test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to compare variables.

RESULTS

The lactose tolerance test as a standard had an 87.5% sensitivity and 92.7% specificity for genetic status. Only a moderate agreement between lactose tolerance test and breath hydrogen test was observed (2-way kappa coefficient, .53; 95% confidence interval, .22-.83). When genetic status was used as standard, symptoms had a moderate sensitivity and specificity. Lactose tolerance test had very good sensitivity, and the breath test had excellent specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Both indirect tests independently have good to very good sensitivities and specificities for genetic lactase status. The noted disagreement likely reflects variables that affect the tests independently of intestinal lactase status. The value of these tests in the light of the availability of genetic testing is discussed.

The molecular basis of lactose intolerance

A staggering 4000 million people cannot digest lactose, the sugar in milk, properly. All mammals, apart from white Northern Europeans and few tribes in Africa and Asia, lose most of their lactase, the enzyme that cleaves lactose into galactose and glucose, after weaning. Lactose intolerance causes gut and a range of systemic symptoms, though the threshold to lactose varies considerably between ethnic groups and individuals within a group. The molecular basis of inherited hypolactasia has yet to be identified, though two polymorphisms in the introns of a helicase upstream from the lactase gene correlate closely with hypolactasia, and thus lactose intolerance. The symptoms of lactose intolerance are caused by gases and toxins produced by anaerobic bacteria in the large intestine. Bacterial toxins may play a key role in several other diseases, such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and some cancers. The problem of lactose intolerance has been exacerbated because of the addition of products containing lactose to various foods and drinks without being on the label. Lactose intolerance fits exactly the illness that Charles Darwin suffered from for over 40 years, and yet was never diagnosed. Darwin missed something else--the key to our own evolution--the Rubicon some 300 million years ago that produced lactose and lactase in sufficient amounts to be susceptible to natural selection.