An observational study in Lactose Intolerance, sponsored by KU Leuven. Completed at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-07-29.
Sponsored by KU Leuven · Observational
Most people are born with the ability to digest lactose, a dissacharide consisting of β-D-glucose and β-D-galactose, because of the presence of lactase at the brush border of the small intestine. In about 75% of the world population the activity of this enzyme decreases after weaning (primary hypolactasia or lactase-nonpersistence), resulting in incomplete digestion of lactose and lactose malabsorption in adulthood (1). Secondary forms of lactose malabsorption may be due to inflammation or functional loss of the intestinal mucosa such as celiac disease, infectious enteritis or Crohn's disease. Very rarely, lactase deficiency is congenital due to an autosomal recessive genetic disorder, preventing lactase expression from birth (2). Whereas some people with lactose malabsorption are asymptomatic, most lactose-nonpersisters experience symptoms like abdominal pain, bloating, excess flatulence or diarrhea. Lactose intolerance refers to the syndrome of having one or more symptoms after consumption of lactose-containing food (3). At present, the origin of the symptoms of lactose-intolerance is not well understood.
Several studies have indicated a poor correlation between lactose maldigestion and symptoms of lactose intolerance (4). In a study by Vonk et al. (2003), lactose intolerant subjects with severe symptoms (diarrhea) and intolerant subjects with only mild symptoms (without diarrhea) did not differ in degree of lactose digestion in the small intestine indicating a similar lactase activity and leading them to the hypothesis of a "colon resistence factor" (5). It was suggested that the colonic processing of maldigested lactose may play a role in the symptoms experienced by lactose intolerant patients. When lactose is malabsorbed and enters the colon, it is rapidly fermented by the resident microbiota into a variety of metabolites including lactate, formate, succinate and short chain fatty acids (SCFA, acetate, propionate, butyrate) as well as gases (H2, CO2 and CH4). When incubating fecal samples from lactose-tolerant and intolerant subjects with lactose, the samples from the lactose-intolerant subjects showed faster production rates of D- and L-lactate, acetate, propionate and butyrate, as compared to tolerant subjects (6). Although the colon is thought to possess a high capacity to absorb SCFA, it was hypothesized that a temporary accumulation of these metabolites due to rapid fermentation of maldigested lactose could be responsible for abdominal pain, excess flatulence and bloating (7;8). Possible mechanisms proposed to explain how SCFA might induce symptoms included an increase in the osmotic load that draws fluid to the colonic lumen, changes in colonic motility and an increased colonic sensitivity (9-11). However, the calculated amount of fluid drawn in the colon is unlikely to cause symptoms considering the high water absorbing capacity of the colon and the effect of SCFA on colonic motility and colonic sensitivity have only been observed in rats and not in humans.
More recently, Campbell et al. introduced the bacterial metabolic toxin hypothesis, stating that also other bacterial metabolites, such as alcohols, aldehydes, acids and ketones, resulting from carbohydrate fermentation play a role in the pathogenesis of lactose-intolerance. These metabolites might inhibit bacterial growth and affect eukaryotic cells (12). In our own previous studies in which we related colonic fermentation patterns to parameters of cytotoxicity, we identified compounds like propionic acid, medium chain fatty acids, 1-octanol and heptanal as more prevalent in the most cytotoxic samples (13), supporting the hypothesis of Campbell et al. Therefore, it seems necessary to include not only SCFA, but also other metabolites, in the investigation of the pathogenesis of lactose intolerance.
Differences in fermentation patterns might be associated with differences in the composition and/or activity of the intestinal microbiota. Evidence on the potential role of the colonic microbiota in lactose intolerance is very limited. Total bacterial numbers were not significantly different between 16 intolerant and 11 tolerant lactose maldigesters although a negative correlation between total bacteria and symptom score was found (14). Similarly, the composition of fecal microbiota was not different between 5 intolerant and 7 tolerant subjects (6).
In this study we will compare colonic fermentation and parameters of gut health (fecal water cytotoxicity) between patients who are lactose intolerant, patients who have lactose malabsorption and healthy subjects.
53 studies on the registry are indexed under Lactose Intolerance; 6 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 34 is below the median of 70 across 11 observational studies indexed under Lactose Intolerance.
Browse Lactose Intolerance studies →KU Leuven is the lead sponsor of 373 studies on the registry; 65 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients with a positive test (reduced lactose digestion and increased H2-excretion) and complaints will be included in the group of lactose-intolerant patients and patients with a positive result without complaints will be included in the group of lactose-malabsorption patients. Subjects with a normal breath test will be recruited as controls.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.
What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.
BMI (body mass index)
Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.
What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Patients with a positive lactose-breath test and complaints during the test
Patients with a positive lactose-breath test and no complaints during the test
Subjects with a negative lactose-breath test
fecal water genotoxicity
Fecal water, prepared by ultracentrifugation of fecal samples, will be incubated with HT-29 cells, a colonic adenocarcinoma cell line. Fecal water genotoxicity will be assessed using the Comet Assay, a sensitive method to detect DNA damage at the level of the individual eukaryotic cell. During the Comet Assay, the cells undergo electrophoresis causing movement of the damaged DNA out of the nucleus. The amount of DNA damage will be determined by measuring the extent the DNA has moved out of the nucleus, using fluorescent microcropy and dedicated software.
Time frame: 1 day
fecal water cytotoxicity
Fecal water cytotoxicity will be measured using the WST-1 assay, a colorimetric test based on the conversion of the tetrazolium salt WST-1 by cellular mitochondrial dehydrogenases present in viable cells. The dilution of fecal water at which 50% of the cells survive will be determined. The higher the dilution, the more cytotoxic the sample is.
Time frame: 1 day
The record gives a start of Jun 2014, a primary completion of Mar 2015 and a completion of Mar 2015. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.