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 ids, immunosuppressants, small molecules, or biological therapy.
2 was made between TNFi treatment and non-TNFi biological therapy.
3 RS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in IBD patients on biological therapy.
4 e to a milder disease course without need of biological therapy.
5 n referred to as paradoxical reactions under biological therapy.
6 ease, 93 with ulcerative colitis) initiating biological therapy.
7 upper and lower airway pathology by systemic biological therapy.
8 ients with Crohn's disease who were naive to biological therapy.
9  of tumorigenesis and the design of rational biological therapy.
10 determining eligibility for anti-IL-5/IL-5Ra biological therapies.
11 n microbiota composition and the outcomes to biological therapies.
12 se with allergic asthma, have benefited from biological therapies.
13               Some patients may benefit from biological therapies.
14 cytokine biology, which responds to targeted biological therapies.
15 eous stimulation, novel drug approaches, and biological therapies.
16 rticularly those who do not respond to other biological therapies.
17 lytic VV in combination with conventional or biological therapies.
18 d use include the use of antimetabolites and biological therapies.
19  a combination of loco-regional and targeted biological therapies.
20 dvances in the fast expanding field of these biological therapies.
21 nse, and summarise the role of antibodies in biological therapies.
22 nt in surgical and radiation techniques, and biological therapies.
23 n of clinical trials should explore emerging biological therapies.
24 ent outcome with 73.9% accuracy for specific biological therapies.
25 e of 33%, with use of topical therapy (60%), biological therapy (66%, mostly anti-tumor necrosis fact
26                                          For biological therapy, a distinction was made between TNFi
27 vascular disease risk in patients exposed to biological therapies (adalimumab and secukinumab) compar
28 al therapy was compared with chemotherapy or biological therapy alone.
29 e resulted in renewed interest in the use of biological therapies, although only subsets of individua
30 se-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to biological therapies and a more technical focus on dynam
31 luate the potential for combining classes of biological therapies and provide future directions on th
32  of the role of FC in assessing responses to biological therapies and the new small molecules.
33          Among them, 40 were IBD patients on biological therapy and 42 were HCWs.
34                        Non-prior exposure to biological therapy and early response to anti-TNF treatm
35 st BNT162b2 vaccine dose, in IBD patients on biological therapy and health care workers (HCWs).
36 ed patients with severe psoriasis initiating biological therapy and matched controls not receiving sy
37 lone individuals who receive chemotherapy or biological therapy and should be continued for 6-12 mont
38                 There is a ying/yang to most biological therapies, and the balance of efficacy versus
39 oscopic remission were non-prior exposure to biological therapy, and clinical and endoscopic remissio
40 s disease (CD) (n = 12) with non-response to biological therapy (anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) or
41              Here we show that the cytotoxic biological therapy Apo2L/TRAIL can prime the tumor micro
42                               Interventions: Biological therapy approved for psoriasis (adalimumab, e
43                                              Biological therapies are a promising therapeutic approac
44                                              Biological therapies are claiming a place in the routine
45                                   Given that biological therapies are exceedingly expensive and pose
46 icult tumour to treat, and response rates to biological therapies are less than 20%.
47 d treatments for PD have advanced, and newer biological therapies are now emerging.
48 ted vasculitis is increasing, and many novel biological therapies are now entering the drug developme
49 rative colitis (UC) after discontinuation of biological therapy are largely unknown.
50 Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on biological therapy are receiving vaccines against severe
51                              Antibody-based (biological) therapies are successful in treating certain
52                                    To review biological therapies as they pertain to the treatment of
53                  With an increasing range of biological therapies available in the management of rheu
54 ts that compare response to chemotherapy and biological therapies between patients and zPDX.
55 mission the last 3 years of observation: non-biological therapy, biological therapy or colectomy.
56 ules, and accessory molecules are targets of biological therapy, but the relevance of these targets i
57                                              Biological therapies can improve airflow obstruction by
58 acizumab in combination with chemotherapy or biological therapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, wa
59 -dose biological drugs to 55 for combination biological therapy, compared with traditional DMARDs.
60                              IBD patients on biological therapy developed a lower antibody titer than
61                                              Biological therapies differ from chemotherapeutic approa
62 aches--including preliminary experience with biological therapies directed at tumor necrosis factor a
63 ndicate that in IBD patients, treatment with biological therapies do not affect the seroprevalence bu
64 immunosuppressant treatment (27%) and 5 with biological therapy drugs (13%).
65     Recent studies of both nonbiological and biological therapies for arthritis-related uveitis are d
66                  The development of approved biological therapies for autoimmune diseases provides ne
67 tegral to the potential development of novel biological therapies for autoinflammatory diseases, incl
68  and represent a critical step in developing biological therapies for degenerative disc disease.
69  the efficacy and safety of conventional and biological therapies for elderly IBD patients.
70  the efficacy and safety of conventional and biological therapies for elderly IBD patients.
71 r the development of molecular diagnosis and biological therapies for mastitis.
72 s monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are promising biological therapies for postinfection, we developed a c
73 itis Cohort (PEAC) and the Stratification of biological therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis by Pathobi
74 rld efficacy of recently and nearly licensed biological therapies for severe asthma to assess the gen
75                           The development of biological therapies for SLE parallels the increasing un
76  in many genetic muscle diseases, as well as biological therapies for the immune-mediated diseases, b
77 y have led to the development of a number of biological therapies for the treatment of diverse human
78                                          New biological therapies for treatment of severe asthma, tog
79  opportunities and risks inherent in a novel biological therapy for a progressive neurologic disease.
80  we screened 235 patients with IBD receiving biological therapy for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and meas
81 delines to identify exosomes as an archetype biological therapy for dermal wound healing and to provi
82  has led to the development of anti-IL-1beta biological therapy for gout flares.
83                                              Biological therapy for inflammatory bowel disease is eff
84 ase III trials can lead to approval of a new biological therapy for regenerative medicine.
85                           The development of biological therapies has improved management of rheumato
86  targeting of these cytokines and of TNFa by biological therapies has revolutionised the care of seve
87                                     Although biological therapy has shown promising clinical response
88 ey cancer is a devastating disease; however, biological therapies have achieved some limited success.
89                                  Several new biological therapies have been developed, which target s
90 hat neither conventional pharmacotherapy nor biological therapies have disease-modifying properties.
91              Interleukin-2-based regimens of biological therapy have shown some clinical promise for
92                                     Targeted biological therapies hold tremendous potential for treat
93                                              Biological therapy holds much promise in SLE and as we l
94 anding use of endocrine therapy and targeted biological therapy, improved understanding of immune eva
95       The body of data supporting the use of biological therapies in inflammatory bowel disease conti
96 re is ongoing debate about the role of newer biological therapies in prevention, treatment or even as
97                       Despite the success of biological therapies in treating inflammatory bowel dise
98  of an inhibitory Lt betaR-Ig as a candidate biological therapy in demyelinating disorders, because i
99 otyping may aid in the therapeutic choice of biological therapy in IBD.
100  molecular mechanisms behind non-response to biological therapy in inflammatory bowel disease are poo
101 d before initiating any immunosuppressive or biological therapy in order to minimize the risk of drug
102 tudy on the pharmacogenetics of FcgammaR and biological therapy in psoriasis suggest a role with clin
103 has been taken toward a more rational use of biological therapy in psoriasis.
104              S0008 (S0008: Chemotherapy Plus Biological Therapy in Treating Patients With Melanoma) w
105                                              Biological therapies including antibodies, soluble recep
106 itis, who had failure to respond to multiple biological therapies, including infliximab, adalimumab,
107                                However, such biological therapies, including those targeting epiderma
108 Of the 75 patients, 46 (61%) did not receive biological therapy, including 23 (31%) in LTR +/- imids.
109 ation associated with immune-suppressive and biological therapies is emerging to be an important caus
110     An intrinsic problem with developing new biological therapies is the difficulty in determining th
111 allei infection, and how targeted adjunctive biological therapy led to a successful outcome.
112                     With the introduction of biological therapies, management of severe asthma has en
113 hanges in patients who respond clinically to biological therapies may identify responses in other tis
114 ns involved in the immunological pathways of biological therapy may account for the differences obser
115 for some profoundly deaf patients, potential biological therapies must extend hearing restoration to
116                                       In 235 biological therapy-naive participants who had 10 or more
117 trated by lung function normalization during biological therapies not previously obtained even with h
118  nodal sites represent novel targets for the biological therapy of cancer.
119 FN-gamma and IL-4 and their potential in the biological therapy of renal cell carcinoma.
120                             After successful biological therapy of Renca in BALB/c mice, we generated
121 on there has been particular interest in the biological therapy of these diseases.
122                                              Biological therapies offer tremendous potential in the t
123  study was to examine the impact of licensed biological therapies on imaging and biomarkers of cardio
124  the impact of anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5Ralpha biological therapies on mast cells (MCs) and their proge
125  patients with psoriasis a new and effective biological therapy option.
126 onse, or intolerance to one or more approved biological therapies or conventional therapies were rand
127 pies that pair antiangiogenic treatment with biological therapy or chemotherapy.
128 ears of observation: non-biological therapy, biological therapy or colectomy.
129 munosuppressive therapy and patients on sole biological therapy (P=0.0287).
130                                              Biological therapies play an increasingly prominent role
131 and 79.5% had previously failed at least one biological therapy, predominantly anti-TNF agents (70.1%
132           Their lack of targets for hormonal/biological therapy presents significant clinical challen
133  variation was associated with the choice of biological therapy rather than with therapeutic outcome.
134 t implications for future genetic studies of biological therapy response in inflammatory diseases.
135 r treatment (eg, immunotherapy, targeted, or biological therapy) settings.
136                 The applications of targeted biological therapies, single-cell genomics, and transgen
137                  Despite the availability of biological therapies, suboptimal disease control remains
138 reasingly diagnosed in patients treated with biological therapies such as monoclonal antibodies that
139 increase access to effective and life-saving biological therapies such as rituximab.
140 iles in assessing early treatment effects in biological therapies such as vaccines awaits further val
141                         The effectiveness of biological therapies, such as anti-interleukin 6, in pat
142         In addition to small molecule drugs, biological therapies, such as antibodies and viral thera
143 severe and/or treatment-resistant MDD, other biological therapies, such as electroconvulsive therapy,
144 eatment continues to be a challenge, but new biological therapies, such as humanised antibodies again
145                        Over the past decade, biological therapies targeting specific pathways of type
146 c are ushering in an expansion of the use of biological therapies targeting Type 2 inflammation now a
147 ith a wider prospect of application than the biological therapies that block proinflammatory cytokine
148  risk of viral reactivation when prescribing biological therapies, thereby facilitating the request f
149  treatment lies in rational multi-target and biological therapies to boost immune cytotoxicity, as we
150 nt experiments demonstrate the potential for biological therapies to regenerate or remyelinate axons
151 overy of inner ear function and suggest that biological therapies to treat deafness may be suitable f
152 nts were still non-responders after changing biological therapy to either anti-TNF (2), vedolizumab (
153                   Age, non-prior exposure to biological therapy, use of IFX and endoscopic remission
154 as amalgam, composites, and metallic alloys, biological therapies utilize mesenchymal stem cells, del
155 acizumab in combination with chemotherapy or biological therapy was compared with chemotherapy or bio
156  in the elderly (20% vs 9%, p = 0.02), while biological therapy was less used (2.1% vs 22%, p < 0.000
157 domisation, who were candidates for systemic biological therapy were included.
158 3 are highly associated with non-response to biological therapy, whereas some UC patients may also ha
159                                 The need for biological therapy will inevitably increase dramatically
160 In most patients, systemic administration of biological therapies with cytokines is associated with s
161 Objective: To investigate the association of biological therapy with changes in coronary artery disea

 
Page Top