4.7 Article

Proton Pump Inhibitors Reduce the Frequency of Phlebotomy in Patients With Hereditary Hemochromatosis

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 147-152

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.06.043

关键词

Hepcidin; Dietary Iron Absorption; Heme; Phlebotomies; Genetic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with hereditary hemochromatosis (HH) need frequent phlebotomies to reduce iron overload. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were reported to reduce the need for phlebotomies in patients homozygous for the C282Y mutation in HFE. We investigated the effects of PPI treatment on numbers of phlebotomies in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with HH homozygous for the C282Y mutation by using the database and medical records from Atrium Medical Centrum Parkstad in Brunssum, The Netherlands. In a paired group analysis of 12 patients, we compared mean serum levels of ferritin and number of phlebotomies needed each year during the periods of 3 years before and 3 years after the start of PPI therapy. We compared these results with those from a group who received PPIs for at least 2 years (n = 9) and a group who never received PPIs (n = 36). RESULTS: We found a significant reduction in median number of phlebotomies after patients began taking PPIs vs before (0.50 vs 3.17, P < .002). Patients who received PPIs for at least 2 years needed significantly fewer phlebotomies than patients in the paired group before they started taking PPIs (1.25 vs 3.17, P < .001). The number of phlebotomies in the group who never received PPIs was significantly higher than in the paired group after they started taking PPIs (3.0 vs 0.5, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a retrospective analysis, in patients with HH homozygous for the C282Y mutation in HFE, treatment with PPIs for 2 or more years significantly reduced the number of phlebotomies required to maintain serum levels of ferritin below 100 mu g/L.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据