To The Editor: We read with great interest the study by Shah and colleagues who performed a meta-analysis on antibiotic therapy for Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO). It should be acknowledged the effort the Authors made to find comparable data. Recently, studies on the pathophysiology of intestinal microbiota grew exponentially. However, focusing on therapy, out of 1356 articles initially found, only 10 fitted the Authors' criteria due to marked differences existing among them in terms of study design. To limit treatment heterogeneity, the Authors analysed separately rifaximin-vs-placebo studies (second meta-analysis), highlighting that there was not statistically significance in terms of effectiveness between these arms. This worrisome report is clearly in conflict with the daily worldwide use of rifaximin in case of symptoms suggestive of SIBO and it is likely due to the limited number of patients enrolled. Moreover, the low number of randomised trials available forced the Authors to include in their analysis studies assessing antibiotic effectiveness in patients with concomitant SIBO and functional or organic diseases. However, these conditions deeply impact on the eradication rate and determine false positive results on breath testing (BT). Indeed, in our study we excluded such influencing variables (motility disorders, mucosal injuries, anatomical changes, therapies) that should be carefully considered in trials evaluating drug effectiveness for SIBO eradication. Finally, we have some concerns regarding the association of Lactulose- with Glucose-BT. To date, important data have been published against the reliability of LBT in diagnosing SIBO, whose diagnostic accuracy should be reconsidered by applying new restrictive criteria for SIBO positivity or combining LBT with radiological investigations. In conclusion, we believe that the findings of this meta-analysis should be interpreted in relation to the above criticisms. Nevertheless, this work clearly underlines the need of further RCTs on SIBO treatment with uniform methodology and including both placebo and probiotics arms.

Letter: treatment for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth - where are we now?

SAVARINO, EDOARDO VINCENZO
2014

Abstract

To The Editor: We read with great interest the study by Shah and colleagues who performed a meta-analysis on antibiotic therapy for Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO). It should be acknowledged the effort the Authors made to find comparable data. Recently, studies on the pathophysiology of intestinal microbiota grew exponentially. However, focusing on therapy, out of 1356 articles initially found, only 10 fitted the Authors' criteria due to marked differences existing among them in terms of study design. To limit treatment heterogeneity, the Authors analysed separately rifaximin-vs-placebo studies (second meta-analysis), highlighting that there was not statistically significance in terms of effectiveness between these arms. This worrisome report is clearly in conflict with the daily worldwide use of rifaximin in case of symptoms suggestive of SIBO and it is likely due to the limited number of patients enrolled. Moreover, the low number of randomised trials available forced the Authors to include in their analysis studies assessing antibiotic effectiveness in patients with concomitant SIBO and functional or organic diseases. However, these conditions deeply impact on the eradication rate and determine false positive results on breath testing (BT). Indeed, in our study we excluded such influencing variables (motility disorders, mucosal injuries, anatomical changes, therapies) that should be carefully considered in trials evaluating drug effectiveness for SIBO eradication. Finally, we have some concerns regarding the association of Lactulose- with Glucose-BT. To date, important data have been published against the reliability of LBT in diagnosing SIBO, whose diagnostic accuracy should be reconsidered by applying new restrictive criteria for SIBO positivity or combining LBT with radiological investigations. In conclusion, we believe that the findings of this meta-analysis should be interpreted in relation to the above criticisms. Nevertheless, this work clearly underlines the need of further RCTs on SIBO treatment with uniform methodology and including both placebo and probiotics arms.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/2791901
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact