Search

Objectives Lactose malabsorption is generally assessed by hydrogen breath testing (HBT). However, this test is not recommended in patients with high baseline hydrogen concentrations (H2B). In addition, breath testing is not recommended in the current situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the potential infectiveness of the samples. The objective is to assess concordance between HBT and lactose tolerance test (LTT) depending on H2B concentrations. Methods A total of 430 patients (40 years, Q1–Q3 = 28–54 years; 66.7% women) suspected of lactose malabsorption were included in the study. Breath and heparinized blood samples were collected at baseline and sequentially after the intake of 50 g of lactose, to measure hydrogen in breath and glycemia in blood, respectively. Results H2B was 20 ppm in 15.8% of subjects. In patients with H2B 2B levels obtained in HBT. Conclusions LTT emerges as an alternative to HBT to assess lactose malabsorption in the presence of high H2B levels or when breath testing is not recommended by the circumstances. The best concordance was obtained when the cut-off for LTT was set at 15 mg/dL.

Resumen Objetivos La malabsorción de lactosa se estudia habitualmente mediante el test de hidrógeno espirado (HBT), aunque su realización no es recomendable cuando la concentración de hidrógeno basal (H2B) es elevada. Además, la situación actual en relación con el SARS-CoV-2 puede hacer desaconsejable el manejo de muestras de aliento. Objetivo: Evaluar la concordancia del HBT y el test de tolerancia a la lactosa (TTL) en función del H2B. Métodos Se estudiaron 430 pacientes (40 años, Q1–Q3 = 28–54 años; 66,7% mujeres) con sospecha de malabsorción de lactosa. Se recogieron basalmente y secuencialmente tras la administración de lactosa, muestras de aliento para medir el hidrógeno espirado y de sangre heparinizada para medir la glucemia. Resultados El 69,5% de los pacientes tenían H2B 20 ppm. En los pacientes con H2B 2B registrados en el HBT. Conclusiónes El TTL puede ser una alternativa al HBT para evaluar la malabsorción de lactosa cuando los niveles de H2B sean elevados o las circunstancias desaconsejen el manejo de muestras de aliento. La mejor concordancia se observa cuando se toma como punto de corte en el TTL de 15 mg/dL.

Background Genomic alterations studies in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) have increasing clinical use in oncology. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology provides the most complete mutational analysis, but nowadays limited data are available related to the comparison of results reported by different platforms. Here we compare two NGS panels for cfDNA: Oncomine™ Pan-Cancer Cell-Free Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific), suitable for clinical laboratories, and Guardant360® (GuardantHealth), with more genes targeted but only available in an outsourcing laboratory. Methods Peripheral blood was obtained from 16 advanced cancer patients in which Guardant360® (G360) was requested as part of their clinical assistance. Blood samples were sent to be analyzed with G360 panel, and an additional blood sample was drawn to obtain and analyze cfDNA with Oncomine™ Pan-Cancer (OM) panel in an Ion GeneStudio S5™ System. Results cfDNA analysis globally rendered 101 mutations. Regarding the 55/101 mutations claimed to be included by manufacturers in both panels, 17 mutations were reported only by G360, 10 only by OM and 28 by both. In those coincident cases, there was a high correlation between the variant allele fractions (VAFs) calculated with each panel (r = 0.979, p Conclusions In summary, G360 and OM can produce different mutational profile in the same sample, even in genes included in both panels, which is especially important if these mutations are potentially druggable.