ライフサイエンスコーパス: cotherapy

1 B lymphocytes that are deleted by anti-CD20 cotherapy.

2 4%) for current users of coxibs without such cotherapy.

3 3 (24.7%) prescribed an NS-NSAID without GPA cotherapy.

4 , 347 (18.9%) prescribed dual coxib plus GPA cotherapy, 173 (9.4%) prescribed a nonselective NSAID (N

5 ment on YMRS) were significantly higher with cotherapy (67.7% vs 44.7%; P< .001).

6 Ucn2 cotherapy additionally increased urine potassium and cre

7 GAMMs may be of high interest as therapy or cotherapy against glioma.

8 urrent users of NSAIDs with gastroprotective cotherapy and 40% (23%-54%) for current users of coxibs

9 Overall adverse event rates were 77.6% with cotherapy and 67.9% with monotherapy.

10 hrombotic without the requirement of aspirin cotherapy and may provide benefits even to the aspirin-n

11 otherapy and/or gastroprotective agent (GPA) cotherapy, and 1,207 (65.8%) received coxibs.

12 bed a nonselective NSAID (NS-NSAID) plus GPA cotherapy, and 453 (24.7%) prescribed an NS-NSAID withou

13 iatal tissue analyses showed that nalbuphine cotherapy blocks several molecular correlates of LID, in

14 Results show that indeed the cotherapy eradicates the complete population of MDR canc

15 e-2 inhibitors for patients who need aspirin cotherapy for the prevention of arterial thrombus format

16 were significantly higher for the olanzapine cotherapy group included somnolence, dry mouth, weight g

17 r remission rates in the MTX and other DMARD cotherapy groups (8% and 5%, respectively) as in the mon

18 odel the response in the MTX and other DMARD cotherapy groups relative to the monotherapy group separ

19 ent users of NSAIDs with no gastroprotective cotherapy had an adjusted incidence of peptic ulcer hosp

20 Olanzapine cotherapy improved 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Sc

21 score of > or = 20 at baseline), olanzapine cotherapy improved HAMD-21 scores by 10.31 points compar

22 Olanzapine cotherapy improved patients' YMRS total scores significa

23 Calcium is an essential cotherapy in osteoporosis treatment.

24 ximab guidelines suggest that MTX be used as cotherapy, in clinical practice, both monotherapy and co

25 Fibrinolytic cotherapy is therefore a rapidly translatable strategy f

26 alproate therapy, were randomized to receive cotherapy (olanzapine + mood-stabilizer) or monotherapy

27 NSAIDs combined with recommended anti-ulcer cotherapy or use of a selective cyclooxygenase 2-inhibit

28 The decrease was due to less GI cotherapy (OR = 0.82 [0.69-0.97]).

29 Drugs to slow mutagenesis could, as cotherapies, prolong the shelf-life of antibiotics, yet

30 Opportunities for cotherapies targeting lipid metabolism that could reduce

31 strointestinal complications, recognition of cotherapies that could reduce NSAID toxicity, and, most

32 e in diagnostics and as leads for anticancer cotherapies, used as enhancements of alkylating agents i

33 More interestingly, when the cotherapy was combined with the properties of nanopartic

34 The most common adverse events with cotherapy were unpleasant taste, headache, dry mouth, an

35 Cotherapy with AICAR and MTX could represent a novel str

36 , in clinical practice, both monotherapy and cotherapy with DMARDs other than MTX are used.

37 MTX and, to a lesser extent, other DMARDs as cotherapy with etanercept was associated with a higher l

38 ieving a higher EULAR response category with cotherapy with MTX (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 95% confidence

39 Cotherapy with MTX or another DMARD produced significant

40 uld be dependent on drug exposure and not on cotherapy with nevirapine.

41 in exercise adaptation can be ameliorated by cotherapy with SGLT2i.