Search

BACKGROUND: Chronic cough can be triggered by respiratory and non-respiratory tract illnesses originating mainly from the upper and lower airways, and the GI tract (ie, reflux). Recent findings suggest it can also be a prominent feature in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), laryngeal hyperresponsiveness, and COVID-19. The classification of chronic cough is constantly updated but lacks clear definition. Epidemiological data on the prevalence of chronic cough are informative but highly variable. The underlying mechanism of chronic cough is a neurogenic inflammation of the cough reflex which becomes hypersensitive, thus the term hypersensitive cough reflex (HCR). A current challenge is to decipher how various infectious and inflammatory airway diseases and esophageal reflux, among others, modulate HCR. OBJECTIVES: The World Allergy Organization/Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (WAO/ARIA) Joint Committee on Chronic Cough reviewed the current literature on classification, epidemiology, presenting features, and mechanistic pathways of chronic cough in airway- and reflux-related cough phenotypes, OSA, and COVID-19. The interplay of cough reflex sensitivity with other pathogenic mechanisms inherent to airway and reflux-related inflammatory conditions was also analyzed. OUTCOMES: Currently, it is difficult to clearly ascertain true prevalence rates in epidemiological studies of chronic cough phenotypes. This is likely due to lack of standardized objective measures needed for cough classification and frequent coexistence of multi-organ cough origins. Notwithstanding, we emphasize the important role of HCR as a mechanistic trigger in airway- and reflux-related cough phenotypes. Other concomitant mechanisms can also modulate HCR, including type2/Th1/Th2 inflammation, presence or absence of deep inspiration-bronchoprotective reflex (lower airways), tissue remodeling, and likely cough plasticity, among others. ispartof: WORLD ALLERGY ORGANIZATION JOURNAL vol:14 issue:12 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a leading cause of acute liver failure and is the most frequent reason for post-marketing drug withdrawal. The spectrum of liver injury is wide, ranging from mild and subclinical injury, noticeable only on routine biochemical testing, to fulminant liver failure and death. Antibiotics, as a group, are a leading cause of DILI. We herein describe 4 patients who developed moderate to severe hepatotoxicity after exposure to a commercially - available combination of two antibiotics - spiramycin and metronidazole - commonly used for the treatment and prevention of periodontal infections. No other aetiology for liver injury could be identified in all cases. Two patients recovered spontaneously, and two had a more severe course, one responding to corticosteroids and mycophenolate mofetil and the other requiring liver transplantation for subacute massive necrosis.

Problems of compliance, quality, and safety of colon preparation regimens have prompted continued investigation with alternative forms of cleansing.To evaluate the efficacy of tegaserod as an adjunct to a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG-E), given as a whole dose or split dose, in colonoscopy preparation.Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.A single university-based hospital.Patients who were undergoing elective colonoscopy.A 4-arm randomization scheme that compared tegaserod with a placebo, each with whole-dose or split-dose PEG-E preparation.Efficacy of colon cleansing was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included adherence, tolerability, adverse effects, and patient perceptions of their preparation quality.A total of 382 patients completed the trial. Patients who received the split-dose preparation had significantly better colon cleansing than those who received the whole-dose preparation (88.9% vs 42.6%, P.001). The addition of tegaserod did not significantly improve the overall colonoscopy preparation quality compared with a placebo. However, there were fewer poor preparations in the whole-dose PEG-E group (12.4% vs 1.1%, P = .002, Bonferroni correction removes significance) and more excellent preparations in the split-dose group (53.3% vs 38.3%, P = .035, Bonferroni correction removes significance) in favor of tegaserod. Interobserver and intraobserver variability analysis showed substantial agreement among endoscopists. Adherence was significantly lower in the whole-dose group versus the split-dose PEG-E group (68.8% vs 91%, P.001), independent of the use of tegaserod. Adverse effects were not different between study groups.A 4-arm randomization and the single-center nature of the study.Tegaserod has a marginal effect on the quality of colonoscopy preparation when used as an adjuvant to PEG-E. The split-dose PEG-E was superior to the whole-dose PEG-E and resulted in better colon cleansing, adherence, and tolerance.

Goals: The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of heterotopic gastric mucosa in the proximal esophagus (HGMPE) and whether thorough endoscopic search may influence such prevalence. Background: Heterotopic gastric mucosa in the esophagus (sometimes known as inlet patch) refers to a discrete area of gastric mucosa, with a spherical or ellipsoid configuration, that is typically located in the proximal esophagus. The prevalence of endoscopically diagnosed HGMPE varies from 0.1% to 10%. Endoscopic detection may be difficult as HGMPE is often located at or just below the upper esophageal sphincter. It might be associated with severe complications such as bleeding, perforation, fistula, and stricture formation, in addition to the development of adenocarcinoma. Study: During a 2-year period, 455 consecutive patients with various gastrointestinal complaints underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy by a single endoscopist (group 1). This endoscopist paid special attention to detecting HGMPE by thoroughly examining the proximal esophagus upon withdrawal of the endoscope. During the same period of time, endoscopy reports of 472 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same hospital by 3 other endoscopists were retrospectively reviewed (group 2). These endoscopists were aware of the existence of the HGMPE and reported that the presence of HGMPE would be included as an endoscopic finding in their reports. Results: In the first group, HGMPE was identified in 12 out of 455 patients (2.6%). Whereas in the second group, only 2 out of 472 patients (0.4%) had reports identifying HGMPE (P< 0.01). Conclusions: Endoscopic detection of HGMPE is influenced by the endoscopist's thorough search of this entity, and thus, more time devoted to such a search may lead to higher detection rates.

Obesity represents a global hazard that predisposes to many serious health problems. Various solutions have been proposed to overcome obesity ranging from dietary balance to bariatric surgery. Intragastric balloons are a widely used measure to decrease weight, although they are advocated as safe devices, some major complications have been reported. We report a case of acute pancreatitis after insertion of a gastric balloon for weight reduction. Abdominal pain associated with nausea and vomiting maybe due to acute pancreatitis caused by compression of the pancreas by the balloon. It is advisable that physicians recognise these complications early to avoid serious and severe end-results.

ALBERTIFLOR JJ, 1985, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V31, P53, DOI 10.1016-S0016-5107(85)71978-5; Beck DE, 2002, CURR TREAT OPTIONS G, V5, P231, DOI 10.1007-s11938-002-0045-7; BINNIE NR, 1992, WORLD J SURG, V16, P836; Bishop PR, 2001, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V33, P72, DOI 10.1097-00004836-200107000-00018; BRITTO E, 1987, DIS COLON RECTUM, V30, P381, DOI 10.1007-BF02555459; BURKE AP, 1990, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V85, P975; CRUVEILHIER J, 1830, ANATOMIE PAHTOLOGIQU; EDERLE A, 1992, ENDOSCOPY, V24, P736, DOI 10.1055-s-2007-1010574; EIGENMANN PA, 1992, EUR J PEDIATR, V151, P658, DOI 10.1007-BF01957567; Emmanuel AV, 2001, GUT, V49, P214, DOI 10.1136-gut.49.2.214; GOEI R, 1987, AM J ROENTGENOL, V149, P933; GOEI R, 1988, RADIOLOGY, V168, P303; HALLIGAN S, 1995, INT J COLORECTAL DIS, V10, P79, DOI 10.1007-BF00341201; HALLIGAN S, 1995, BRIT J SURG, V82, P314, DOI 10.1002-bjs.1800820309; HALLIGAN S, 1995, AM J ROENTGENOL, V164, P91; Haray PN, 1997, INT J COLORECTAL DIS, V12, P313, DOI 10.1007-s003840050113; Jarrett MED, 2004, GUT, V53, P368, DOI 10.1136-gut.2003.025643; KANG YS, 1995, INT J COLORECTAL DIS, V10, P87, DOI 10.1007-BF00341203; KENNEDY DK, 1977, SURG GYNECOL OBSTET, V144, P718; KOCHHAR R, 1990, DIS COLON RECTUM, V33, P49, DOI 10.1007-BF02053202; KUIJPERS HC, 1986, DIS COLON RECTUM, V29, P126, DOI 10.1007-BF02555397; Kumar M, 1994, Indian Pediatr, V31, P1553; Li SC, 1998, AM J SURG PATHOL, V22, P106, DOI 10.1097-00000478-199801000-00014; MACKLE EJ, 1986, CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V15, P985; MADIGAN MR, 1969, GUT, V10, P871, DOI 10.1136-gut.10.11.871; Malik A K, 1990, Indian J Pathol Microbiol, V33, P216; Malouf AJ, 2001, DIS COLON RECTUM, V44, P72, DOI 10.1007-BF02234824; Marchal F, 2001, INT J COLORECTAL DIS, V16, P228, DOI 10.1007-s003840100303; Marshall M, 2002, BRIT J SURG, V89, P1281, DOI 10.1046-j.1365-2168.2002.02197.x; MARTIN CJ, 1981, BRIT J SURG, V68, P744, DOI 10.1002-bjs.1800681021; MILLWARD SF, 1985, CLIN RADIOL, V36, P185, DOI 10.1016-S0009-9260(85)80110-0; Monkemuller KE, 1999, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V94, P1417, DOI 10.1111-j.1572-0241.1999.01417.x; NICHOLLS RJ, 1986, BRIT J SURG, V73, P222, DOI 10.1002-bjs.1800730324; PARKS AG, 1966, P ROY SOC MED, V59, P477; RUTTER KR, 1975, CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V3, P505; Sitzler PJ, 1998, BRIT J SURG, V85, P1246; TANDON RK, 1990, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V12, P286, DOI 10.1097-00004836-199006000-00010; THOMSON H, 1980, BRIT J SURG, V67, P784, DOI 10.1002-bjs.1800671106; TJANDRA JJ, 1992, DIS COLON RECTUM, V35, P227, DOI 10.1007-BF02051012; TJANDRA JJ, 1993, DIS COLON RECTUM, V36, P146, DOI 10.1007-BF02051170; Tsuchida K, 1998, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V93, P2235; Vaizey CJ, 1997, GUT, V41, P817; VANDENBRANDTGRADEL V, 1984, DIGEST DIS SCI, V29, P1005; VANOUTRYVE MJ, 1993, GUT, V34, P1422, DOI 10.1136-gut.34.10.1422; Velasco FJ, 1998, REV ESP ENFERM DIG, V90, P454; Williams C N, 1990, Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl, V172, P60; YAMAGIWA H, 1988, ACTA PATHOL JAPON, V38, P471; ZARGAR SA, 1991, DIS COLON RECTUM, V34, P455, DOI 10.1007-BF02049928

Background: Current treatment of Helicobacter pylori consists of three or four drugs for 7–14 days with important associated cost and adverse events. Aims: This study compared efficacy and safety of standard dose vs. half-dose concomitant nonbismuth quadruple therapy (NBQT) for 7 days. The standard dose consisted of twice daily rabeprazole 20 mg, amoxicillin 1 g, metronidazole 500 mg, and clarithromycin 500 mg. Methods: This was a prospective randomized trial. 14 C-urea breath test was performed � 4 weeks after treatment and � 2 weeks off acid suppressive therapy. Compliance and adverse events were monitored during treatment. Results: A total of 200 consecutive treatment-nao ¨ve patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, with 15.5% of subjects reporting prior macrolide use. Eradication occurred in 78% (95% CI 68.6–85.7%) in both groups on intention-to-treat analysis. Per-protocol rates were 82.1 vs. 83.9% for standard-dose patients vs. half-dose patients, respectively (p ¼ NS). Adverse events (only mild) were reported in 57 vs. 41% of standard-dose patients vs. half-dose patients (p ¼ 0.024), with metallic taste and nausea notably less frequent in the latter (36 vs. 12% and 18 vs. 7%, respectively; p < 0.05 for both). Overall, eradication failed in 38.7% of prior macrolide users vs. 18.9% without such exposure (p ¼ 0.019). On multivariate logistic regression, prior macrolide exposure was the only factor associated with failed eradication (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.06–6.39; p ¼ 0.038). Treatment was cheaper with the half-dose regimen. Interpretation: A 50% reduction in antibiotic dosage does not diminish efficacy of concomitant nonbismuth quadruple therapy but leads to significant reduction in cost and adverse events. Seven-day concomitant NBQT is suboptimal for H. pylori independent of prior macrolide exposure.

BLUM A, 1994, J RADIOL, V75, P245; BREDFELDT JE, 1980, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V2, P355, DOI 10.1097-00004836-198012000-00007; BUCKHOTTZ RP, 1958, ANN SURG, V149, P590; ENDRESS C, 1989, J CLIN ULTRASOUND, V17, P206, DOI 10.1002-jcu.1870170309; FURUTA Y, 1987, Gastroenterologia Japonica, V22, P374; GARCIATSAO G, 1985, HEPATOLOGY, V5, P419, DOI 10.1002-hep.1840050313; GROSZMANN RJ, 1990, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V9, P705; GUDMUNDSEN TE, 1988, ACTA CHIR SCAND, V154, P603; Hung CF, 1999, POSTGRAD MED J, V75, P355; KELLER FS, 1980, CARDIOVASC INTER RAD, V3, P97, DOI 10.1007-BF02552327; LAINE L, 1991, WESTERN J MED, V155, P274; MCCLARY RD, 1986, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V81, P572; PASTERNAK BM, 1978, ANGIOLOGY, V29, P367, DOI 10.1177-000331977802900503; Pietri J, 1990, Ann Vasc Surg, V4, P533, DOI 10.1016-S0890-5096(06)60834-0; Sharara AI, 2001, NEW ENGL J MED, V345, P669, DOI 10.1056-NEJMra003007; TAKAYASU K, 1985, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V88, P564; VANWAY CW, 1971, SURGERY, V70, P876; Vauthey JN, 1997, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V113, P1390, DOI 10.1053-gast.1997.v113.pm9322535

Endoscopic celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) has become the procedure of choice for the management of patients with pancreatic cancer and abdominal pain unresponsive to medical treatment. It is necessary to differentiate between CPN and endoscopic celiac plexus block performed in patients with benign disease. In this review we describe the technique of this procedure with special emphasis on technical details.

To study the efficacy of low-dose imipramine in relieving symptoms associated with the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).A randomized, double-blind trial of 25 mg imipramine vs matched placebo for 12 wk was performed. Doubling the dose was allowed once at week 2 in case of an unsatisfactory early response. Primary efficacy variables were subjective global symptom relief and quality of life (QoL) using SF-36 at week 12.One hundred and seven patients were enrolled by advertisement or referral by general practitioners and 56 (31 imipramine: 25 placebo) completed the 16-wk study. Baseline characteristics were comparable. A high overall dropout rate was noted in the imipramine and placebo arms (47.5% vs 47.9%, P0.05), a mean of 25.0 and 37.4 d from enrollment, respectively (P0.05). At the end of 12 wk, there was a significant difference in global symptom relief with imipramine over placebo (per-protocol: 80.6% vs 48.0%, P = 0.01) and a trend on intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (42.4% vs 25.0%, P = 0.06). This improvement was evident early and persisted to week 16 (P = 0.024 and 0.053 by per-protocol and ITT analyses, respectively). Mean cumulative and component-specific SF-36 scores improved in the imipramine group only (per-protocol, P0.01). Drug-related adverse events leading to patient dropout were more common in the imipramine group (25.4% vs 12.5%, P0.05).Imipramine may be effective in the treatment of IBS patients and is associated with improved QoL. Careful patient selection, initiation of a low dose with gradual escalation and monitoring for side effects may result in an improved therapeutic response.

Summary Background Functional dyspepsia is a prevalent condition associated with diminished quality of life (QoL) and high economic burden. Aim To study the efficacy of a combination of flupenthixol and melitracen (F + M) with anxiolytic and antidepressant properties in functional dyspepsia using a randomized controlled cross-over design. Methods Patients met the Rome III criteria for functional dyspepsia and a validated questionnaire was used to exclude those with anxiety or depression. Moreover, patients had to have failed a trial of acid-suppressive therapy and Helicobacter pylori eradication when positive. End points included subjective global symptom relief and QoL assessed by the Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI). Results Twenty-five patients (14 females, 11 males; mean age = 34.3 ± 9.9 years) were enrolled and 24 completed the 8-week study. There was a significant improvement in subjective global symptom relief with F + M vs. placebo (ITT: 73.9% vs. 26.1%, P = 0.001) and a significant drop in the NDI score vs. placebo (ITT: −9.0 ± 11.9 vs. −2.4 ± 8.9, P = 0.03). No difference was noted whether the initial treatment was F + M or placebo. No significant side effects were noted. Conclusions A combination of F and M is safe and effective in the short-term treatment of functional dyspepsia. F + M is associated with significant improvement in QoL independent of the presence of anxiety or depression.

Duodenal mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma is very rare, and little is known about its clinical characteristics, endoscopic and endosonographic features, and treatment. We hereby report a case of duodenal MALT lymphoma successfully treated by radiation therapy (RT). The patient was referred to us with epigastric pain and positive fecal occult blood testing. His symptoms failed to resolve with eradication therapy for a Helicobacter pylori infection that was diagnosed by a gastric biopsy performed elsewhere. Endoscopy at our institution revealed hypertrophy of the duodenal folds with erosions involving a third of the circumference few centimeters beyond the ampulla of Vater. Histopathologic and immunophenotypic features were consistent with a MALT lymphoma. There was no evidence of a H. pylori infection by gastric biopsy and urea breath test. Computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis was normal. Endoscopic ultrasound showed thickening of the duodenal wall and hypoechoic infiltration into the submucosal layer. The patient was treated with RT with a complete response. Two and a half years later, he remains in complete clinical, endoscopic, and histopathologic remission. This case illustrates the importance of RT in patients with duodenal MALT lymphoma whose disease did not respond to H. pylori eradication.

ALNAKIB B, 1984, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V79, P191; Al-Shamali MA, 2003, DIGESTION, V67, P218, DOI 10.1159-000072060; Bernstein CN, 1999, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V149, P916; Bjornsson S, 2000, EUR J GASTROEN HEPAT, V12, P31, DOI 10.1097-00042737-200012010-00007; Blanchard JF, 2001, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V154, P328, DOI 10.1093-aje-154.4.328; delaCal JAL, 1997, EUR J GASTROEN HEPAT, V9, P1129; DROSSMAN DA, 1989, DIGEST DIS SCI, V34, P1379, DOI 10.1007-BF01538073; FIREMAN Z, 1989, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V84, P255; GILAT T, 1974, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V66, P335; GROSSMAN A, 1989, HEPATO-GASTROENTEROL, V36, P193; GUYATT GH, 1989, J GEN INTERN MED, V4, P101, DOI 10.1007-BF02602348; Irvine EJ, 1999, J PEDIATR GASTR NUTR, V28, pS23, DOI 10.1097-00005176-199904001-00003; Koss K, 2000, GENES IMMUN, V1, P185, DOI 10.1038-sj.gene.6363657; KURATA JH, 1992, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V102, P1940; Law NM, 1998, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V26, P27, DOI 10.1097-00004836-199801000-00008; Loftus EV, 2000, GUT, V46, P336, DOI 10.1136-gut.46.3.336; Loftus EV, 1998, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V114, P1161, DOI 10.1016-S0016-5085(98)70421-4; Loftus EV, 2002, GASTROENTEROL CLIN N, V31, P1, DOI 10.1016-S0889-8553(01)00002-4; MORITA N, 1995, J GASTROENTEROL, V30, P1; Moum B, 1996, SCAND J GASTROENTERO, V31, P355, DOI 10.3109-00365529609006410; Niv Y, 1999, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V94, P2961; Niv Y, 2000, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V95, P693; ODES HS, 1991, GUT, V32, P1024, DOI 10.1136-gut.32.9.1024; ODES HS, 1987, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V82, P854; Odes H S, 1989, Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl, V170, P36; PINCHBECK BR, 1988, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V10, P505, DOI 10.1097-00004836-198810000-00007; Radhakrishnan S, 1997, DIGESTION, V58, P266; Rubin GP, 2000, ALIMENT PHARM THERAP, V14, P1553, DOI 10.1046-j.1365-2036.2000.00886.x; Shapira M, 1998, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V27, P134, DOI 10.1097-00004836-199809000-00006; Shivananda S, 1996, GUT, V39, P690, DOI 10.1136-gut.39.5.690; STOWE SP, 1990, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V98, P104; Tragnone A, 1996, INT J EPIDEMIOL, V25, P1044, DOI 10.1093-ije-25.5.1044; TRALLORI G, 1991, ITAL J GASTROENTEROL, V23, P559; VUCELIC B, 1991, INT J EPIDEMIOL, V20, P1043, DOI 10.1093-ije-20.4.1043; VUCELIC B, 1991, INT J EPIDEMIOL, V20, P216, DOI 10.1093-ije-20.1.216; WRIGHT JP, 1986, S AFR MED J, V70, P10; Yang SK, 2000, J GASTROEN HEPATOL, V15, P1037, DOI 10.1046-j.1440-1746.2000.02252.x; Yang SK, 2001, INFLAMM BOWEL DIS, V7, P260, DOI 10.1097-00054725-200108000-00013

Objective Massive gastric dilatation is a very serious condition that is extremely rare in patients with no history of gastrointestinal disease. Several cases have been reported in patients with eating disorders, particularly after a binge. We report here the case of a young woman who developed severe gastric dilatation after a single binge. Methods A computed tomographic (CT) scan of the abdomen was done and a psychiatric evaluation was performed. Results The diagnosis of acute gastric dilatation was confirmed and superior mesenteric artery syndrome was excluded. The patient responded to nasogastric drainage and bowel rest. She was also found to have situational anxiety and depressive symptoms as well as a nonspecified eating disorder. Conclusion This case illustrates the serious sequel of even a single binge in any patient with abnormal dietary habits, and demonstrates the useful role of the CT scan in the diagnosis. © 2005 by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background Colonoscopy preparation regimens are poorly tolerated, requiring the use of a large volume of an unpalatable solution and diet restriction for adequate cleansing. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two regimens of bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a whole dose of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG-E), with diet restriction vs. a split dose with no diet restriction. Methods A total of 141 patients (ages 20-84 years, 81 men) were randomly assigned to receive either 4 L PEG-E, along with a liquid diet the day before colonoscopy (Group A) or 2 L PEG-E with a regular diet the day before colonoscopy followed by another 2 L PEG-E on the day of the procedure (Group B). The quality of the preparation was graded by the endoscopist (poor to excellent), who was blinded to the type of preparation. Tolerability of the assigned preparation and adverse effects were recorded by an independent investigator by using a questionnaire administered before colonoscopy. Intra- and interobserver variability was studied by using randomly chosen videotapes of colonoscopies performed as part of the study. Results There were 73 patients in Group A and 68 patients in Group B. The quality of the preparation was significantly better in Group B ( p =0.011). The tolerability of the preparation regimen was not different overall between study groups in terms of side effects (except for bloating, which was more frequent in Group B, p =0.039) or willingness to repeat the preparation. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved adherence to the assigned preparation in favor of Group B ( p =0.062). Inter- and intraobserver variability analysis showed good to excellent correlation among endoscopists. Conclusions Colonic preparation with split-dose PEG-E and no dietary restriction provides better quality colon cleansing than whole-dose preparation, with no significant impact on patient tolerability and side effects.

DAHLBACK B, 1995, BLOOD, V85, P607; Delarive J, 1998, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V93, P651; Deltenre P, 2001, GUT, V48, P264, DOI 10.1136-gut.48.2.264; Graham IM, 1997, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V277, P1775, DOI 10.1001-jama.277.22.1775; Karasu Z, 2003, TRANSPLANT P, V35, P3008, DOI 10.1016-j.transproceed.2003.10.038; Li XM, 2002, AM J HEMATOL, V71, P11, DOI 10.1002-ajh.10149; Mahmoud AEA, 1997, GUT, V40, P798; Menon KVN, 2004, NEW ENGL J MED, V350, P578, DOI 10.1056-NEJMra020282

BALESTRAZZI P, 1985, BLUT, V50, P55, DOI 10.1007-BF00319772; Chehal A, 2002, HEMOGLOBIN, V26, P219, DOI 10.1081-HEM-120015025; Ricchi Alessandro, 2004, Ital Heart J, V5, P302; RUSSO A, 1987, AM J HEMATOL, V24, P111, DOI 10.1002-ajh.2830240115; STEVENS RG, 1988, NEW ENGL J MED, V319, P1047, DOI 10.1056-NEJM198810203191603