Uday C Ghoshal1, Chalamalasetty Sreenivasa Baba2, Ujjala Ghoshal3, George Alexander2, Asha Misra2, Vivek A Saraswat2, Gourdas Choudhuri2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, 226 014, India. udayghoshal@gmail.com. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, 226 014, India. 3. Department of Microbiology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, 226 014, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though pathogenesis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is unclear, association with small intestinal bacterial overgrowth [SIBO] and fecal dysbiosis is suggested. We evaluated SIBO in NASH using quantitative jejunal aspirate culture (conventional criteria: ≥ 105 colony forming unit (CFU)/mL and newer cutoff ≥ 103 CFU/mL) and glucose hydrogen breath test. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with NASH (age 37.5 years, range 20-54, 9, 24% female), diagnosed by ultrasonography, alanine aminotransferase >1.5 times normal and liver biopsy (in 27/38, 71%) and exclusion of other causes and 12 constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome as historical controls (age 39.5-y, 26-44; 3, 25% female) without fatty liver were studied. RESULTS: Jejunal aspirates, obtained in 35/38 patients, were sterile in 14/35 (40%) and bacteria isolated in 21 (60%) (all aerobic, in one anaerobe also; Gram positive 5, negative 13, both 3). In contrast, bacteria (two Gram negative) were isolated in 3/12 (25%) controls (odds ratio 4.5, 95% CI 1.0-19.5; p = 0.04); colony counts were higher in NASH than controls (median 380 CFU/mL, 0-200,000 vs. 0 CFU/mL, 0-1000; p = 0.02). Gram negative bacteria tended to be commoner in NASH than controls (16/35 vs. 2/12; p = 0.07). Seven out of 35 (20%) patients with NASH (≥ 105 CFU/mL in 5 and 2 other on glucose hydrogen breath test) and no control had SIBO (p = ns); low-grade SIBO (≥103 CFU/mL) was commoner in NASH than controls (14/35, 40%, vs. 1/12, 8.3%; p = 0.04). There was no correlation between bacterial colony count and bacterial type and anthropometric and biochemical parameters. CONCLUSION: Low-grade bacterial overgrowth, particularly with Gram negative bacteria, was commoner in NASH than controls.
BACKGROUND: Though pathogenesis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is unclear, association with small intestinal bacterial overgrowth [SIBO] and fecal dysbiosis is suggested. We evaluated SIBO in NASH using quantitative jejunal aspirate culture (conventional criteria: ≥ 105 colony forming unit (CFU)/mL and newer cutoff ≥ 103 CFU/mL) and glucose hydrogen breath test. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with NASH (age 37.5 years, range 20-54, 9, 24% female), diagnosed by ultrasonography, alanine aminotransferase >1.5 times normal and liver biopsy (in 27/38, 71%) and exclusion of other causes and 12 constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome as historical controls (age 39.5-y, 26-44; 3, 25% female) without fatty liver were studied. RESULTS: Jejunal aspirates, obtained in 35/38 patients, were sterile in 14/35 (40%) and bacteria isolated in 21 (60%) (all aerobic, in one anaerobe also; Gram positive 5, negative 13, both 3). In contrast, bacteria (two Gram negative) were isolated in 3/12 (25%) controls (odds ratio 4.5, 95% CI 1.0-19.5; p = 0.04); colony counts were higher in NASH than controls (median 380 CFU/mL, 0-200,000 vs. 0 CFU/mL, 0-1000; p = 0.02). Gram negative bacteria tended to be commoner in NASH than controls (16/35 vs. 2/12; p = 0.07). Seven out of 35 (20%) patients with NASH (≥ 105 CFU/mL in 5 and 2 other on glucose hydrogen breath test) and no control had SIBO (p = ns); low-grade SIBO (≥103 CFU/mL) was commoner in NASH than controls (14/35, 40%, vs. 1/12, 8.3%; p = 0.04). There was no correlation between bacterial colony count and bacterial type and anthropometric and biochemical parameters. CONCLUSION: Low-grade bacterial overgrowth, particularly with Gram negative bacteria, was commoner in NASH than controls.
Authors: V Ratziu; P Giral; F Charlotte; E Bruckert; V Thibault; I Theodorou; L Khalil; G Turpin; P Opolon; T Poynard Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Giuseppe Losurdo; Fulvio Salvatore D'Abramo; Giuseppe Indellicati; Chiara Lillo; Enzo Ierardi; Alfredo Di Leo Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Ashish Goel; Banumathi Ramakrishna; Uday Zachariah; K G Sajith; Deepak K Burad; Thomas A Kodiatte; Shyamkumar N Keshava; K A Balasubramanian; Elwyn Elias; C E Eapen Journal: Indian J Med Res Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Satish S C Rao; George Tan; Hamza Abdulla; Siegfried Yu; Sebastian Larion; Pornchai Leelasinjaroen Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Li-Hui Yan; Biao Mu; Da Pan; Ya-Nan Shi; Ji-Hong Yuan; Yue Guan; Wang Li; Xiao-Yi Zhu; Lei Guo Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 1.671