Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter October 9, 2013

Influence of urine volume on the assessment of intestinal permeability in affected children by multiple sugar probes

  • Riccardo Addobbati , Lorella Pascolo EMAIL logo , Nicola Di Toro , Giulia B. Sebastiani , Stefano Martellossi and Tarcisio Not


Background: In this study we have looked at the reliability of a multi-sugar test in a pediatric patient population and its accuracy at small urine volumes to evaluate intestinal permeability.

Methods: Out of 117 subjects enrolled, 31 were healthy and 86 were sick. A solution containing lactulose, rhamnose, sucrose, and sucralose was administered to subjects who were on fasting; the urine excreted during 5 h was collected and measured. Samples were analyzed by gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and results were expressed as percentage of sugar recoveries and lactulose/rhamnose (L/R) ratio.

Results: The analyses showed a clear effect of low urinary volumes (≤240 mL) particularly affecting rhamnose excretion in healthy subjects and sucrose and sucralose recovery in diseased children. Despite the low rhamnose recovery, as lactulose is not similarly affected, the diagnostic reliability of L/R ratio is well preserved at low diuresis conditions. However, this ratio can be useful to discriminate acute conditions vs. clinical remissions only at high urine volumes. Data also suggest potential diagnostic applicability of sucrose and sucralose in children at high urine volumes.

Conclusions: In conclusion, the multi-sugar test has a good predictivity in pediatric subjects but results must be carefully interpreted in the face of reduced diuresis.

Corresponding author: Lorella Pascolo, Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Via dell’Istria, 34137 Trieste, Italy, Phone: +39 040 3785356, E-mail:

The authors thank Dr. Luca Ronfani and the Biostatistics Unit of our institution for performing the statistical analyses.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ conflict of interest disclosure: The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.


1. Tooley KL, Howarth GS, Butler RN. Mucositis and non-invasive markers of small intestinal function. Cancer Biol Ther 2009;8:753–8.10.4161/cbt.8.9.8232Search in Google Scholar

2. Menzies IS, Laker MF, Pounder R, Bull J, Heyer S, Wheeler PG, et al. Abnormal intestinal permeability to sugars in villous atrophy. Lancet 1979;2:1107–9.10.1016/S0140-6736(79)92507-8Search in Google Scholar

3. Mattioli F, Fucile C, Marini V, Isola L, Montanaro F, Savarino V, et al. Assessment of intestinal permeability using sugar probes: influence of urinary volume. Clin Lab 2011;57:909–18.Search in Google Scholar

4. Medeiros PM, Simoneit BR. Analysis of sugars in environmental samples by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 2007; 1141:271–8.10.1016/j.chroma.2006.12.017Search in Google Scholar

5. Hyams J, Markowitz J, Otley A, Rosh J, Mack D, Bousvaros A, et al. Evaluation of the pediatric crohn disease activity index: a prospective multicenter experience. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2005;41:416–21.10.1097/01.mpg.0000183350.46795.42Search in Google Scholar

6. Turner D, Hyams J, Markowitz J, Lerer T, Mack DR, Evans J, et al. Appraisal of the pediatric ulcerative colitis activity index (PUCAI). Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009;15:1218–23.10.1002/ibd.20867Search in Google Scholar

7. Piena-Spoel M, Albers MJ, ten KJ, Tibboel D. Intestinal permeability in newborns with necrotizing enterocolitis and controls: does the sugar absorption test provide guidelines for the time to (re-)introduce enteral nutrition? J Pediatr Surg 2001;36:587–92.10.1053/jpsu.2001.22288Search in Google Scholar

8. van Wijck K, Verlinden TJ, van Eijk HM, Dekker J, Burrman WA, Dejong CH, et al. Novel multi-sugar assay for site-specific gastrointestinal permeability analysis: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Clin Nutr 2013;32:245–51.10.1016/j.clnu.2012.06.014Search in Google Scholar

9. Oriishi T, Sata M, Toyonaga A, Sasaki E, Tanikawa K. Evaluation of intestinal permeability in patients with inflammatory bowel disease using lactulose and measuring antibodies to lipid A. Gut 1995;36:891–6.10.1136/gut.36.6.891Search in Google Scholar

10. Arrieta MC, Bistritz L, Meddings JB. Alterations in intestinal permeability. Gut 2006;55:1512–20.10.1136/gut.2005.085373Search in Google Scholar

11. Meddings JB, Sutherland LR, Byles NI, Wallace JL. Sucrose: a novel permeability marker for gastroduodenal disease. Gastroenterology 1993;104:1619–26.10.1016/0016-5085(93)90637-RSearch in Google Scholar

12. McOmber ME, Ou CN, Shulman RJ. Effects of timing, sex, and age on site-specific gastrointestinal permeability testing in children and adults. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2010;50: 269–75.10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181aa3aa9Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Received: 2013-8-6
Accepted: 2013-8-23
Published Online: 2013-10-9
Published in Print: 2014-2-1

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston

Downloaded on 30.3.2023 from
Scroll to top button