Search

The category HopfR of Hopf algebras over a commutative unital ring R is analyzed with respect to its categorical properties. The main results are: (1) For every ring R the category HopfR is locally presentable, it is coreflective in the category of bialgebras over R, over every R-algebra there exists a cofree Hopf algebra. (2) If, in addition, R is absoluty flat, then HopfR is reflective in the category of bialgebras as well, and there exists a free Hopf algebra over every R-coalgebra. Similar results are obtained for relevant subcategories of HopfR. Moreover it is shown that, for every commutative unital ring R, the so-called "dual algebra functor" has a left adjoint and that, more generally, universal measuring coalgebras exist.Keywords: Hopf algebras, *bialgebras, limits, colimits, free Hopf algebras, cofree Hopf algebras, Hopf envelope, universal measuring coalgebra.

No Abstract

We report two cases of acute hepatitis E. The first case is a 21-year-old male who had returned two weeks earlier from a three-month journey to India. He was admitted into our clinic with nausea, stomach pain, vomiting, scleral icterus and stool discoloration. After excluding other possible causes of the symptoms, we made the diagnosis by testing for antibodies by EIA. No treatment was initiated and despite a temporary increase of the icterus, the patient returned to a normal state of health. The second case is a native of India who has lived in Germany for ten years. He returned from a two-week visit to India with fever, nausea and malaise. In follow-up, he was anicteric, and a temporary thrombocytopenia was detected. He was treated symptomatically. and recovered within a few days. The patient had a secondary diagnosis of sinusitis, which was resolved with antibiotics. In spite of a large spectrum of diagnostic possibilities, a part of the liver diseases cannot be etiologically clarified. Following travel to India and other endemic regions, hepatitis E should be considered in the differential diagnosis. The course of hepatitis E is usually benign, further diagnostic studies are rarely needed, and the treatment is usually symptomatic.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability, efficacy, and safety of vardenafil, 10 mg, for patients with erectile dysfunction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Vardenafil-naive patients completed a 4-week treatment-free run-in phase and a 1-week single-dose vardenafil (10 mg) open-label challenge phase. Responders to vardenafil in the challenge phase were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind, fixed-dose treatment with vardenafil at 10 mg or placebo. Diary responses to Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) questions about erections and attempts at sexual activity were collected after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of randomized treatment. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: During the open-label challenge phase, the proportions of patients with a first-time success for penetration (SEP2) and maintenance of erection (SEP3) were 87% and 74%, respectively. Of 600 patients challenged with a single dose of vardenafil at 10 mg, 260 were randomized to vardenafil and 263 to placebo. During the double-blind phase, the reliability of penetration and maintenance rates for patients successful during the challenge phase were significantly greater with vardenafil compared with placebo (83.4% vs 55.8% [SEP2] and 76.6% vs 42.1% [SEP3], respectively). At week 12, patients in the vardenafil group had a consistently higher least squares mean (SE) on the erectile function domain score of the International Index of Erectile Function than patients in the placebo group (23.5 [0.4] vs 15.8 [0.4], respectively [last observation carried forward]) and a greater proportion of positive responses to the Global Assessment Question (80.8% vs 32.3%, respectively [last observation carried forward]) at each assessment (P

APPENDIX: INVESTIGATORS BY PARTICIPATING SITE: A Dignass: Markus-Krankenhaus, Frankfurt, Germany; H Lochs: Campus Charité Mitte Berlin, Germany; H Porst: Städtisches Klinikum Dresden, Germany; G von Boyen: Universitäts-klinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany; A Raedler: Asklepios Westklinikum, Hamburg, Germany; M Reinshagen: Städtisches Klinikum, Braunschweig, Germany; B Bonaz: Albert Michallon Hospital, Grenoble, France; W Vogel: LKH Univ.-Klinik, Innsbruck, Austria; S Vavricka: Universita¨tsspital Zürich, Switzerland; C Felley: CHUV Lausanne, Switzerland; F Seibold: Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland; C Ciacci: Università Federico II, Napoli, Italy; M Vecchi: Policlinico S. Donato Milanese, Italy; R Sablich: Ospedale S. Maria degli Angeli, Pordenone, Italy; A Malesci: Clinico Humanitas Rozzano, Milano, Italy; M Cottone: Ospedale Cervello Palermo, Italy; G Riegler: Policlinico II, Università di Napoli, Napoli, Italy; G Minoli: Ospedale Valduce, Como, Italy; A Lanzini: Spedali Civili 1, Brescia, Italy; X Hébuterne: Hôpital de l'Archet 2, Nice, France; P Premchand: Queen's Hospital, Romford, United Kingdom; K Douglas: West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, United Kingdom; J Rhodes: Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom; L Castro-Larsa: Hospital Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain; A Rodriguez- Pérez: Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain; A Pukitis: Paul Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia; A Kilander: Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset, Gothenberg, Sweden; A Lapidus: Ersta Sjukhus, Stockholm, Sweden; A Makin: Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, United Kingdom; M H Vatn: Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway; R Løfberg: Sophia Hemmet Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Y Bouhnik: Hopital Beaujon, Clichy, France; B Flourié: Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France; W Kruis: Ev. Krankenhaus, Köln-Kalk, Germany; G Bommelaer: CHU HOTEL-Dieu, Clermont-Ferrand, France; A Thillainayagam: Charing Cross Hospital, London, United Kingdom; A Sturm and DC Baumgart: Charité Campus Virchov-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany; V Annese: CSS-IRCCS Hospital, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy; A Indriolo: Ospedali Reuniti, Bergamo, Italy; A Eriksson: Sahlgrenska University Hospital ⁄ East Hospital, Gothenberg, Sweden; S Vavricka: Universitätsspital, Basel, Switzerland; J Emmrich: Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany.; International audience; BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is characterized by leucocyte infiltration into the colonic mucosa. Granulocyte-monocyte apheresis depletes these cells. AIM: To assess the non-inferiority of 5-10 apheresis treatments in patients with steroid-dependent or steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. METHODS: A total of 196 adults with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis were randomized 1:1 to 5 (n = 96) or 10 (n = 90) open label apheresis treatments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of clinical activity index score after 12 weeks. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 82 and 80 patients for the 5- and 10-treatment groups, respectively. The difference between the two groups in mean clinical activity index was 0.24 with an upper 95% confidence interval of 1.17, which was below a predefined non-inferiority threshold of 1.33. Clinical activity index score improved from baseline in both groups (from 8.7 to 5.6 with 5 treatments, and from 8.8 to 5.4 with 10), with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.200). Outcomes for the 5- and 10-treatment groups were similar--clinical remission: 44% and 40%, respectively (P = 0.636); clinical response: 56% and 59%, respectively (P = 0.753). The treatment was well tolerated in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study comparing apheresis regimens in ulcerative colitis demonstrates that 5 treatments were not inferior to 10 treatments in steroid-refractory or -dependent ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE A comprehensive investigation on the quality of partnership of male patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) after treatment with sildenafil vs. untreated patients, as perceived by both the patients and their female partners. METHODS This report describes an observational, cross-sectional exploratory study comparing ED patients responsive to sildenafil with ED patients prior to therapy. Assessments included the 'International Index of Erectile Function' (IIEF) and the 'Partnerschaftsfragebogen' (PFB), a partnership questionnaire used in German-speaking countries. The comparability of the two study groups was examined using a stepwise logit model. Significant intergroup differences regarding demographics and history were identified and included as confounding variables in the assessment of Quality of Partnership differences using ANCOVA. A regression analysis was performed to determine the association between the mean total IIEF scores and Quality of Partnership measures. RESULTS 105 patients were included in the study. After adjustment for confounding variables, the groups varied significantly with respect to Quality of Partnership as perceived by men (mean score PFB 61.8 +/- 13.9 vs. 54.4 +/- 15.5; p