ライフサイエンスコーパス: HAMA

1 HAMA levels were many times greater in amount than HATA

2 HAMA response occurred in five of six patients.

3 HAMA was determined in two patients.

4 HAMA/heterophile absorption experiments did not explain

5 ctively; IDS, 33.82 (9.26) and 29.64 (9.31); HAMA, 14.70 (5.47) and 10.95 (4.48); and GAD-7, 10.91 (5

6 ively; IDS, 30.17 (11.98) and 25.04 (11.68); HAMA, 11.71 (5.86) and 8.17 (4.68); and GAD-7, 7.78 (4.1

7 l cancer patients, and only rarely induces a HAMA response.

8 tion, but does induce a human anti-mouse Ab (HAMA) response despite strong concurrent immunosuppressi

9 ar results can be found in HAMD-17, SDS, and HAMA scores as well.

10 surement of human antimonoclonal antibodies (HAMA).

11 Human antimouse antibodies (HAMA) did not develop in the patients after treatment.

12 tients developed human antimouse antibodies (HAMA) to CEA-Scan after a single injection, and none of

13 ients developed human antimurine antibodies (HAMA) after RIT.

14 Human antimurine antibodies (HAMA), anti-I-Mel-2 antibodies, and specific antibody (A

15 Human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA) developed in all but one of the six patients who r

16 ts negative for human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA).

17 Human antimouse antibody (HAMA) response, adverse events, clinical laboratory valu

18 baseline anti-SEA, human antimouse antibody (HAMA), CA242-soluble antigen levels, and T-cell receptor

19 patients due to a human anti-mouse antibody (HAMA) response.

20 etics, dosimetry, human anti-mouse antibody (HAMA), toxicity and clinical responses were evaluated.

21 (SDS) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA).

22 95% CI, -0.29 to 2.68; P = .11) or anxiety (HAMA mean difference, 1.16; 95% CI, -0.18 to 2.51; P = .

23 peated injection, in no patient did elevated HAMA titers develop, hematology and serum chemistry chan

24 e CI regimen made antibody against mouse Ig (HAMA) and/or ricin A chain antibody (HARA).

25 g human anti-mouse antibody (immunoglobulin; HAMA) responses in patients, however, limits the use of

26 ient treatment giving significant decline in HAMA score across other comparators.

27 However, no improvements in HAMA score was observed for the group receiving lorazepa

28 pproach, where hyaluronic acid methacrylate (HAMA) is mixed with gelatin methacryloyl to achieve high

29 No HAMA were detectable in either patient, and no adverse r

30 bited acceptable toxicities, and elicited no HAMA formation.

31 silexan 160 mg resulted in higher decline of HAMA score [WMD -1.14 (-1.10, 3.39)] in comparison to si

32 llowed by selectively enzymatic digestion of HAMA, resulting in tissue-matching mechanical properties

33 The PSQI, HAMA and HAMD scores at therapy termination and follow-u

34 ecklist 90 (SCL-90), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) before and af

35 ating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Veter

36 ession Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Col

37 come of interest was Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA).

38 le (HAMD-17), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), and mean reaction time/accuracy rate (DeltaMRT) o

39 Index (PSQI), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), actigrap

40 res; anxiety: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAMA] and General Anxiety Disorder [GAD-7] scores) to be

41 e found that self-reported anxiety severity (HAMA) was correlated with urinary THC/Cr ratios at basel

42 ed, to allow the use of RIT and can suppress HAMA responses.

43 Rapid onset of the HAMA response will hinder multicycle therapy, unless it

44 mprovements in anxiety symptoms according to HAMA scores (week 4: SES, 0.67; 95% CI, 0-0.95; week 8: