戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 ion of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), and antiviral prophylaxis.
2  fluid using Cox regression, controlling for antiviral prophylaxis.
3 ized to receive either preemptive or 3-month antiviral prophylaxis.
4  in the context of short-term peritransplant antiviral prophylaxis.
5 as made in favor of monitoring alone without antiviral prophylaxis.
6 ditional recommendation was made in favor of antiviral prophylaxis.
7 ng CMV cell-mediated immunity (CMI) to guide antiviral prophylaxis.
8 splant viral D/R serostatus, and duration of antiviral prophylaxis.
9 l among recipients not taking posttransplant antiviral prophylaxis.
10 eiving HCC therapy in relation to use of HBV antiviral prophylaxis.
11 ose who are anti-HBs-negative should receive antiviral prophylaxis.
12 tio (OR) of reactivation with versus without antiviral prophylaxis.
13 ents, particularly in patients not receiving antiviral prophylaxis.
14 were included, among whom 373 (44%) received antiviral prophylaxis.
15 ely included D(+)/R(-) patients who received antiviral prophylaxis.
16 motherapy that can be largely prevented with antiviral prophylaxis.
17 eats asymptomatic CMV viremia, and universal antiviral prophylaxis.
18 ve antiviral therapy and no patient received antiviral prophylaxis.
19 ts of seropositive organs despite the use of antiviral prophylaxis.
20                    Targeting viral dsRNA for antiviral prophylaxis.
21 ern that can be targeted for broad and rapid antiviral prophylaxis.
22  shown that reactivation can be prevented by antiviral prophylaxis.
23 ng late CMV disease after discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis.
24 odified as a result of the widespread use of antiviral prophylaxis.
25 er transplant recipients who did not receive antiviral prophylaxis.
26  in 33 liver transplant recipients not given antiviral prophylaxis.
27 ificantly lower with preemptive therapy than antiviral prophylaxis (9% [9/100] vs 19% [20/105]; diffe
28                                      Despite antiviral prophylaxis, a high percentage (over 90%) of h
29                   There is increasing use of antiviral prophylaxis after transplant with little expan
30 d immunity may individualize the duration of antiviral prophylaxis after transplantation.
31  and tenofovir, has improved the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus (HBV) re
32 phylaxis; 69% of the patients never received antiviral prophylaxis and did not develop CMV disease.
33 rm decision-making regarding the duration of antiviral prophylaxis and frequency of virologic monitor
34       Additional protective factors included antiviral prophylaxis and having had a household discuss
35 CMV is a reasonable alternative to prolonged antiviral prophylaxis and may reduce unnecessary exposur
36 evelop recommendations regarding the role of antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring without antiviral p
37 grammable antivirals', with implications for antiviral prophylaxis and post-exposure therapy.
38 d prevention strategy combining short-course antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive cytomegalovirus (CM
39 ients, coincident with both the cessation of antiviral prophylaxis and subsequent detection of active
40 ific T cell (VST) lines could provide useful antiviral prophylaxis and treatment of immune-deficient
41 EBV infections, which occur despite standard antiviral prophylaxis, and chronic allograft injury in p
42 m in liver transplant recipients who receive antiviral prophylaxis, and is strongly and independently
43 ation of a combination of targeted household antiviral prophylaxis, and social distancing measures co
44 erapy for hematological malignancies without antiviral prophylaxis, anti-HBs positivity is associated
45 ntial impact of preemptive therapy (PET) and antiviral prophylaxis (AP) on development of cytomegalov
46              Appropriate viral screening and antiviral prophylaxis are necessary to prevent infection
47 ing, and linking the results of screening to antiviral prophylaxis are needed to reduce the incidence
48 ong 17 HCT studies, the absence of or use of antiviral prophylaxis at <1 year post-transplant was ass
49                                      Ceasing antiviral prophylaxis at 11 months in patients with a ne
50            Of the 80/118 patients who ceased antiviral prophylaxis at 5 months, the incidence of vire
51 use of frequent recurrences despite adequate antiviral prophylaxis (AVP) (n = 13, 72%), or poor respo
52    Patients were randomized to a duration of antiviral prophylaxis based on immune monitoring (interv
53            Results support HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis before initiation of chemotherapy
54  rejection in kidney recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis but was still an independent risk
55 oring resulted in a significant reduction of antiviral prophylaxis, but we were unable to establish n
56                                              Antiviral prophylaxis can be effective in mitigating the
57                                     Expanded antiviral prophylaxis can help delay the pandemic while
58                                              Antiviral prophylaxis can potentially prevent rituximab-
59  race/ethnicity, type of transplant, type of antiviral prophylaxis, CMV serostatus, and use of mycoph
60 ation should be monitored and routine use of antiviral prophylaxis considered.
61   If pre-vaccination occurred, then targeted antiviral prophylaxis could be effective for containing
62                            Without effective antiviral prophylaxis, cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is
63 at-risk patients include a fixed duration of antiviral prophylaxis despite the associated cost and si
64                                              Antiviral prophylaxis dominated the current strategy, pr
65 or stem-cell transplantation, should receive antiviral prophylaxis during and for minimum 12 months a
66 who may benefit from alternative vaccines or antiviral prophylaxis during influenza outbreaks.
67 mediate early-1 (IE-1) protein at the end of antiviral prophylaxis (EOP) and various time points ther
68                                        Thus, antiviral prophylaxis, even with reduced efficacy, could
69 und a high incidence of HZ after CBT despite antiviral prophylaxis for > 1 year.
70  developed CMV infection and did not receive antiviral prophylaxis for CMV (P>0.20 for all variables)
71 tion never developed and who did not receive antiviral prophylaxis for CMV.
72 cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention strategy of antiviral prophylaxis for high-risk CMV-seronegative liv
73 nel made a strong recommendation in favor of antiviral prophylaxis for individuals at high risk of HB
74 antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring without antiviral prophylaxis for management of HBVr.
75  15% in the preemptive therapy vs 19% in the antiviral prophylaxis group (difference, 4% [95% CI, -14
76  significantly for the preemptive therapy vs antiviral prophylaxis group, respectively.
77                                              Antiviral prophylaxis has been shown to decrease the inc
78                                     Targeted antiviral prophylaxis has potential as an effective meas
79 prevention of graft-versus-host disease, and antiviral prophylaxis have enhanced the applicability of
80                     With the use of targeted antiviral prophylaxis, if 80% of the exposed persons mai
81 ized clinical trial of preemptive therapy vs antiviral prophylaxis in 205 CMV-seronegative liver tran
82 ndomized trial of CMV preemptive therapy vs. antiviral prophylaxis in D+R- liver transplant recipient
83 his drug may be an important acquisition for antiviral prophylaxis in HBV-infected liver recipients.
84 MV) disease and its effective reduction with antiviral prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients.
85 ic immune monitoring to direct the length of antiviral prophylaxis in lung transplantation (LTx).
86                                  The role of antiviral prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus (H
87 tion and avoid unnecessary administration of antiviral prophylaxis in recipients of HBsAg(-), anti-HB
88 s not previously been directly compared with antiviral prophylaxis in these patients.
89       The CMV events can still occur despite antiviral prophylaxis, including late-onset infection or
90                                         Such antiviral prophylaxis is nearly as effective as vaccinat
91                                      Routine antiviral prophylaxis is not needed, but using concomita
92                                              Antiviral prophylaxis is offered for 4 months starting i
93                                              Antiviral prophylaxis is recommended in cytomegalovirus
94 mmended, except with impaired wound healing; antiviral prophylaxis is recommended when treating the f
95                                    Long-term antiviral prophylaxis is required to prevent hepatitis B
96 In select cases, clinical monitoring without antiviral prophylaxis is sufficient for managing the ris
97 up of hepatitis B birth dose vaccination and antiviral prophylaxis is urgently needed, which could ac
98 onvincing evidence that addition of CMVIG to antiviral prophylaxis lowers CMV endpoints and mortality
99     In addition, the use of interferon as an antiviral prophylaxis may be an effective way to limit s
100 regardless of the donor anti-HBs status, and antiviral prophylaxis may be indicated.
101 lop allograft rejection during the period of antiviral prophylaxis may benefit from extended and/or e
102 ta, data from the present study suggest that antiviral prophylaxis may lower the incidence, prevalenc
103 ctive data suggest that addition of CMVIG to antiviral prophylaxis may reduce rates of CMV-related ev
104 transplant, shortly after discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis (median 2 mo).
105                         To determine whether antiviral prophylaxis might reduce the incidence of PTLD
106 alganciclovir, 900 mg, daily for 100 days as antiviral prophylaxis (n = 105).
107                    The impact of longer-term antiviral prophylaxis on HZ incidence after CBT is unkno
108 revention program that incorporates maternal antiviral prophylaxis on mother-to-child transmission (M
109  at risk of developing CS-CMVi and requiring antiviral prophylaxis or therapy and those who are prote
110 routine CMV blood cultures in the absence of antiviral prophylaxis or treatment for viremia.
111                                              Antiviral prophylaxis or treatment is used to reduce the
112                                           No antiviral prophylaxis or treatment options are available
113            Given that there are no effective antiviral prophylaxis or treatment strategies for BKPyVA
114 CI], 6.79-12.73) and decreased with maternal antiviral prophylaxis (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, .16-.49).
115 roups did not differ in age, rejection rate, antiviral prophylaxis, or level of immunosuppression.
116     To limit outbreaks, guidelines recommend antiviral prophylaxis, particularly oseltamivir or zanam
117            Despite the application of potent antiviral prophylaxis, patients remain at risk for CMV i
118                     Combinations of targeted antiviral prophylaxis, pre-vaccination, and quarantine c
119 potential role for booster vaccinations, and antiviral prophylaxis prior to chemotherapy in this pati
120 er transplant recipients who did not receive antiviral prophylaxis, qualitative and quantitative poly
121 to investigate the effectiveness of targeted antiviral prophylaxis, quarantine, and pre-vaccination i
122  virus (HBV) reactivation, but screening and antiviral prophylaxis remains controversial because of i
123                                 Cessation of antiviral prophylaxis resulted in reversion of this pati
124 the use of preemptive therapy, compared with antiviral prophylaxis, resulted in a lower incidence of
125  P = .001), but not among those who received antiviral prophylaxis (SHR, 1.13 [95% CI, .70-1.83]; P =
126                      The most cost-effective antiviral prophylaxis strategy is lifelong lamivudine.
127                                           An antiviral prophylaxis strategy was cost saving compared
128                                          (3) Antiviral prophylaxis strategy: All pregnant women are s
129 -child transmission and to provide them with antiviral prophylaxis, the feasibility of administrating
130 nto account whether the patient has received antiviral prophylaxis, the patient's individual risk pro
131 udies involving 1,672 patients not receiving antiviral prophylaxis, the reactivation risk was 14% (95
132 to investigate the effectiveness of targeted antiviral prophylaxis to contain influenza.
133  (<120 days) vs long (>180 days) CMV primary antiviral prophylaxis to prevent CMV disease in PLT, thr
134 is may benefit from extended and/or enhanced antiviral prophylaxis to prevent late-onset CMV disease.
135 ospectively measured from discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis until 1 year after transplantation
136                              Compliance with antiviral prophylaxis, VZV-specific immune monitoring, a
137  (P=0.09) decreased adjusted mortality risk; antiviral prophylaxis was associated with decreased adju
138  was associated with increased risk, whereas antiviral prophylaxis was associated with reduced risk f
139                                              Antiviral prophylaxis was given to 49% recipients, varyi
140 ty, although resistant virus reappeared when antiviral prophylaxis was resumed.
141  of liver transplant recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis were assessed retrospectively.
142 tients, absent or <1 year of post-transplant antiviral prophylaxis were associated with higher HZ cum
143    Detection of HBV core antibody may prompt antiviral prophylaxis when commencing therapy such as ri
144                              Adding maternal antiviral prophylaxis with 90% coverage could reduce tra
145                                              Antiviral prophylaxis with hepatitis B immunoglobulin (H
146  of liver transplant recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis with oral ganciclovir were retrosp
147 ed HSV-2 genital outbreaks despite receiving antiviral prophylaxis with several different drugs.
148                 The authors compare targeted antiviral prophylaxis with vaccination strategies.

 
Page Top