1.Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth Complicating Gastrointestinal Manifestations of Systemic Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Ayesha SHAH ; Veenaa PAKEERATHAN ; Michael P JONES ; Purna C KASHYAP ; Kate VIRGO ; Thomas FAIRLIE ; Mark MORRISON ; Uday C GHOSHAL ; Gerald J HOLTMANN
Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2023;29(2):132-144
Background/Aims:
Systemic sclerosis (SSc) often is complicated by small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). A systematic review and meta-analysis thus examined the prevalence of SIBO in SSc (SSc-subtypes), identify risk factors for SIBO in SSc and the effects of concomitant SIBO on gastrointestinal symptoms in SSc.
Methods:
We searched electronic databases until January-2022 for studies providing prevalence rates of SIBO in SSc. The prevalence rates, odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of SIBO in SSc and controls were calculated.
Results:
The final dataset comprised 28 studies with 1112 SSc-patients and 335 controls. SIBO prevalence in SSc-patients was 39.9% (95% CI, 33.1-47.1; P= 0.006), with considerable heterogeneity, (I 2 = 76.00%, P < 0.001). As compared to controls, there was a 10-fold increased SIBO prevalence in SSc-patients (OR, 9.6; 95% CI, 5.6-16.5; P< 0.001). The prevalence of SIBO was not different in limited cutaneous SSc as compared to diffuse cutaneous SSc (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.46-2.20; P = 0.978). Diarrhea (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.9-16.0; P = 0.001) and the association between SIBO in SSc and proton pump inhibitor use (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.8-6.4; P = 0.105) failed statistical significance. Rifaximin was significantly more effective as compared to rotating antibiotic in eradicating SIBO in SSc-patients (77.8% [95% CI, 64.4-87.9]) vs 44.8% [95% CI, 31.7-58.4]; P < 0.05).
Conclusions
There is a 10-fold increased prevalence of SIBO in SSc, with similar SIBO prevalence rates in SSc-subtypes. Antimicrobial therapy of SIBO-positive SSc-patients with diarrhea should be considered. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to substantial unexplained heterogeneity in the prevalence studies, and the low sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic tests suggesting that the reliability of the evidence may be low.