ライフサイエンスコーパス: everolimus

1 s, 846 paclitaxel, 1387 zotarolimus, and 343 everolimus).

2 kely to discontinue treatment (31% v 12% for everolimus).

3 th temozolomide, and synergize strongly with everolimus.

4 eed for dose reductions and interruptions of everolimus.

5 to grade 3 hypokalaemia possibly related to everolimus.

6 rt transplant recipients, in particular with everolimus.

7 o, low-exposure everolimus, or high-exposure everolimus.

8 o exemestane plus placebo or exemestane plus everolimus.

9 ival benefit compared with those assigned to everolimus.

10 d with the mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) inhibitor everolimus.

11 e rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6% for everolimus.

12 istent with the known side-effect profile of everolimus.

13 mus, and 18 (14%) who received high-exposure everolimus.

14 oved progression-free survival compared with everolimus.

15 riven glioma were treated with dasatinib and everolimus.

16 was more pronounced in patients allocated to everolimus.

17 reduced dose CNI in more recent studies with everolimus.

18 ifference of 13 mm Hg (P = 0.02) in favor of everolimus.

19 II trial, treatment-naive patients received everolimus 10 mg oral once per day plus bevacizumab 10 m

20 were enrolled, of whom 205 were allocated to everolimus 10 mg per day and 97 to placebo.

21 interactive voice response system to receive everolimus 10 mg per day orally or identical placebo, bo

22 nning on day 1 of cycle 1, patients received everolimus 10 mg plus exemestane 25 mg daily, with 10 mL

23 treatment schedule of pazopanib 800 mg/d and everolimus 10 mg/d (rotating arm) or continuous pazopani

24 Patients received oral everolimus 10 mg/d until disease progression, unacceptab

25 ade pancreatic NET were randomly assigned to everolimus 10 mg/day (n = 207) or placebo (n = 203).

26 out any dose-limiting toxicities; therefore, everolimus 10 mg/day given on days 1-14 with R-CHOP-21 w

27 1 and feasibility study (NCCTG 1085) of oral everolimus 10 mg/day plus R-CHOP-21 in patients aged at

28 exemestane (25 mg oral daily) together with everolimus (10 mg oral daily) or with placebo.

29 otide (60 mg intramuscularly every 28 days), everolimus (10 mg orally once daily), or both in combina

30 active voice response system to receive oral everolimus (10 mg per day) or placebo, both with best su

31 ents were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week c

32 one before and 2 and 6 wk after the start of everolimus, 10 mg/d, in mRCC patients.

33 analyzed, 67 received an mTOR inhibitor (56 everolimus, 11 sirolimus) and 41 did not.

34 nivolumab (200 [55%] of 361 patients) versus everolimus (126 [37%] of 343 patients; p<0.0001).

35 nificantly different but trended in favor of everolimus (16.5 v 22.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.77 [95%

36 ting in significantly lower trough levels of everolimus (3.5 versus 4.5 ug/L, P<0.001) and cyclospori

37 ignificantly shorter for apitolisib than for everolimus (3.7 v 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 2.12 [95% CI

38 ety of two trough exposure concentrations of everolimus, 3-7 ng/mL (low exposure) and 9-15 ng/mL (hig

39 Oral everolimus (4 mg/kg once per day) or oral respective inh

40 ased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8.3 months [80% CI 5.8-11.4] vs 5.6 months [

41 with placebo versus 29.3% with low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 18.8-41.9; p=0.0028) and 39.6% with h

42 tients) compared with 28.2% for low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 20.3-37.3; 33 patients; p=0.0077) and

43 ients; p=0.0077) and 40.0% for high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 31.5-49.0; 52 patients; p<0.0001).

44 41.9; p=0.0028) and 39.6% with high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 35.0-48.7; p<0.0001).

45 Everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhib

46 l standard-of-care chemotherapy for GBM, and everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhib

47 cy and safety of long-acting pasireotide and everolimus, administered alone or in combination, in pat

48 Notably, everolimus (an mTOR inhibitor) treatment of patients wit

49 improved significantly: new options include everolimus, an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapa

50 We found that treatment with everolimus, an inhibitor of the mTOR pathway, reduces th

51 Two hundred forty-two patients randomized to everolimus and 107 control patients were followed for a

52 at week 48, 70 (83%) of 84 patients assigned everolimus and 22 (85%) of 26 allocated placebo complete

53 51.8 months) for those randomly assigned to everolimus and 37.7 months (95% CI, 29.1 to 45.8 months)

54 re was 11.27 months (95% CI 9.27-19.35) with everolimus and 9.23 months (5.52-not estimable) with pla

55 baseline, 193 (94%) of 205 patients assigned everolimus and 95 (98%) of 97 allocated placebo had comp

56 s were enrolled; 205 were randomly allocated everolimus and 97 were assigned placebo.

57 reated BPAR in 50% and 23% (P < 0.01) in the everolimus and CNI groups, respectively; no episode led

58 rtrophy was present in 41.7% versus 37.7% of everolimus and CNI patients, respectively.

59 on rate was 74.7 mL/min and 62.4 mL/min with everolimus and CNI, respectively.

60 to treatment that led to discontinuation of everolimus and exemestane (the most common were rash, hy

61 (patients who received at least one dose of everolimus and exemestane and at least one confirmed dos

62 severity of stomatitis in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane and could be a new standard of

63 standard of oral care for patients receiving everolimus and exemestane therapy.

64 historical controls from the BOLERO-2 trial (everolimus and exemestane treatment in patients with hor

65 novo heart transplant patients randomized to everolimus and low-dose CNI followed by CNI-free therapy

66 The combination of the TORC1 inhibitor everolimus and neratinib potently arrested the growth of

67 received significantly lower daily doses of everolimus and nonsignificantly lower doses of cyclospor

68 th no relevant differences noted between the everolimus and placebo groups.

69 minished mononuclear graft infiltration than everolimus and preserved ciliated pseudostratified colum

70 Everolimus and purine analogs are suitable options for r

71 Everolimus and R507 similarly suppressed systemic cellul

72 t of PDGFRalpha-driven HGG was enhanced with everolimus and suggest a promising route for improving t

73 Everolimus and temsirolimus are inhibitors of mTOR (mTOR

74 Rapamycin analogs Everolimus and Temsirolimus are non-ATP-competitive mTOR

75 We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in

76 ge in tumor tracer uptake after the start of everolimus and to explore whether (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET

77 placebo, 16 (14%) who received low-exposure everolimus, and 18 (14%) who received high-exposure ever

78 n, >1-year graft survival, no initial use of everolimus, and available anti-human leukocyte antigen a

79 as present in 53% (19/36) and 74% (26/35) of everolimus- and CNI-treated patients, respectively (P =

80 edictive value of (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET for everolimus antitumor efficacy.

81 te that axitinib, pazopanib, vandetanib, and everolimus are also teratogens in these models.

82 of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus are increasingly used in cardiothoracic trans

83 f rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, sirolimus and everolimus, are increasingly used after organ transplant

84 arger fall in systolic blood pressure in the everolimus arm (between-group difference 8 mm Hg; P = 0.

85 analysis and could transition to open-label everolimus at the investigator's discretion (extension p

86 Data regarding the long-term efficacy of everolimus-based immunosuppression for kidney transplant

87 349 participants from 5 randomized trials of everolimus-based immunosuppression.

88 vo heart transplant recipients, comparing an everolimus-based immunosuppressive regimen with conventi

89 y endpoints indicate potential advantages of Everolimus-based protocols but also a potentially higher

90 fter early conversion from CNI to a CNI-free everolimus-based regimen.

91 Only everolimus but not R507, adversely altered kidney functi

92 between VHL mutation status and outcome with everolimus but not with apitolisib.

93 The mean difference was in favor of everolimus by 11.8 mL/min in the intent-to-treat populat

94 plantation to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or Everolimus combined with cyclosporine A (CsA) and steroi

95 e aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus compared with placebo in this patient populat

96 imus monotherapy (rotating arm) or initiated everolimus (control arm).

97 PSCs or kidney organoids with cysteamine and everolimus corrects all of the observed phenotypic abnor

98 n >/= 21 of the first 41 evaluable patients, everolimus could be recommended for further evaluation.

99 ) or liposomal doxorubicin, bevacizumab, and everolimus (DAE) (N = 13).

100 ncluded in the Scandinavian Heart Transplant Everolimus De Novo Study With Early Calcineurin Inhibito

101 Everolimus decreases (89)Zr-bevacizumab tumor uptake.

102 l with everolimus, our findings suggest that everolimus delays disease progression while preserving o

103 tating treatment schedule with pazopanib and everolimus delays disease progression, exhibits more fav

104 Three patients discontinued everolimus early.

105 EXAMINATION study (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of P

106 l with zotarolimus-eluting (ZES, n = 697) or everolimus-eluting (EES, n = 694) cobalt-chromium stents

107 These patients were randomly assigned to the everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS (n=2164) or the Xience cob

108 in which patients were randomly assigned to everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS or metallic everolimus-elu

109 patients (2:1) to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbot

110 efits of coronary stenosis treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold are unknown.

111 or-initiated, randomized trial to compare an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everol

112 The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)

113 The performance of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)

114 The Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)

115 garding the long-term efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS

116 coronary intervention, randomly allocated to everolimus-eluting DES or to an equivalent BMS platform

117 bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience).

118 rbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-or

119 , Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascul

120 limus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the context of rout

121 s; however, recent trials comparing BVS with everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES) raised concerns

122 ger term follow-up when compared with Xience everolimus-eluting permanent polymer-coated stent in a l

123 The Absorb everolimus-eluting poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbabl

124 b BVS (n=2164) or the Xience cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES; n=1225).

125 olimus-eluting stent and in 11.5% for Xience everolimus-eluting stent (P=0.55).

126 s who fulfilled our inclusion criteria (1351 everolimus-eluting stent and 3265 CABG), propensity scor

127 with studies showing worse outcomes with an everolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-elut

128 stent group and in 45 patients (6.5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0.8

129 (10%) of 427 patients in the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent group met the 12-month primary

130 g stent group and ten patients (1.4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse even

131 t ventricular systolic dysfunction, PCI with everolimus-eluting stent had comparable long-term surviv

132 tinas (HL) versus white women after coronary everolimus-eluting stent implantation in all-comer patie

133 After contemporary everolimus-eluting stent implantation, women and minorit

134 ity confer heterogeneity in women undergoing everolimus-eluting stent implantation.

135 Patients received 1 or more everolimus-eluting stent implantation.

136 luting stent compared with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a broad patient population u

137 limus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a complex patient population

138 action </=35%) who underwent either PCI with everolimus-eluting stent or CABG were selected from the

139 stent is non-inferior to the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was 100% (Bayesian analysis, di

140 ting and ultra-thin struts (Supraflex) or an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating

141 raflex with the standard of care, Xience, an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating,

142 sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with Bayesian methods.

143 nt or to thin-strut permanent polymer Xience everolimus-eluting stent.

144 olimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent.

145 eive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an everolimus-eluting stent.

146 nical outcomes compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES).

147 to everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS or metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and followed up for at l

148 clitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) catheters and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in the treatment of bare

149 However, the results of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in these distinct scenar

150 Long-term safety and efficacy for everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus those of sirolimu

151 In the EXAMINATION trial, we compared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (

152 ase randomized to BVS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES).

153 ombotic complications compared with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES).

154 us-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (n=450).

155 CI) with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or C

156 PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or C

157 on Choice PC) versus permanent polymer-based everolimus-eluting stents (PP-EES; Xience) versus early

158 rction, or stroke was similar after PCI with everolimus-eluting stents and CABG and was independent o

159 bable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with everolimus-eluting stents are limited.

160 ain CAD and site-assessed SS<=32 to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents or CABG.

161 pare percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG in patients with l

162 ative 30-day and 3-year outcomes of PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG were consistent in

163 scores <=32) were randomized 1:1 to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG, stratified by the

164 e SYNTAX scores by site assessment, PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to CABG with r

165 utcomes beyond 1 year and comparing BVS with everolimus-eluting stents were included.

166 he relative hazards of the BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents were observed, particularly fo

167 ith drug-eluting stents (DES; paclitaxel- or everolimus-eluting stents) for reducing major adverse ca

168 Compared with everolimus-eluting stents, BVS is associated with increa

169 rcutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using everolimus-eluting stents.

170 n and minorities vs white men after PCI with everolimus-eluting stents.

171 rates were increased after BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents.

172 year with BVS compared with cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents.

173 the 5-year follow-up with BVS compared with everolimus-eluting stents.

174 We studied 12-hour everolimus (EVL) PK in 16 elderly renal transplant recip

175 After heart transplant, adding everolimus (EVL) to standard immunosuppressive regimen m

176 in a 1:1:1 ratio to 3 treatment groups: (i) everolimus (EVR) + reduced tacrolimus (TAC) (n = 245); (

177 omin (CHE) targets the hypoxic pathway while Everolimus (EVR) acts on the mTOR pathway.

178 Comprehensive guidelines on use of everolimus (EVR) in LT are still lacking.

179 the incidence of WHAE in patients receiving everolimus (EVR) or mycophenolate sodium (MPS).

180 ansplant) immunosuppression regimen based on everolimus (EVR) reduces the risk of WHC versus EVR star

181 the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus (EVR) shows anticytomegalovirus (CMV) activit

182 or CNI-free immunosuppressive regimen using everolimus (EVR), but the significance of albuminuria as

183 in renal transplant recipients who are using everolimus (EVR)-based immunosuppressive regimen.

184 tastatic breast cancer patients treated with everolimus-exemestane in first and subsequent lines.

185 m a clinical trial with the mTORC1 inhibitor everolimus exhibit a predominant decrease in AMD1 immuno

186 nized interstitial therapy of paclitaxel and everolimus for post-surgical tumor control of GBM.

187 Recent clinical evaluation of everolimus for seizure reduction in patients with tubero

188 The mTORC1 inhibitor everolimus given for 14 days in combination with R-CHOP-

189 We tested two schedules: everolimus given in the fasting state either on days 1-1

190 One death in the everolimus group (acute kidney injury associated with di

191 otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneu

192 litis obliterans syndrome (BOS): 1/43 in the Everolimus group and 8/54 in the MMF group (p = 0.041).

193 Increased BPAR in the everolimus group during year 1 did not impair long-term

194 protocol amendment permitted patients in the everolimus group to cross over to nivolumab treatment.

195 tomatitis (in 18 [9%] of 202 patients in the everolimus group vs 0 of 98 in the placebo group), diarr

196 inib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), d

197 14 of 42 patients (33.3%, 19.6-49.5) in the everolimus group, and 24 of 41 patients (58.5%, 42.1-73.

198 the long-acting pasireotide group, 42 to the everolimus group, and 41 to the combination group.

199 ng pasireotide group, six (14%) of 42 in the everolimus group, and three (7%) of 41 in the combinatio

200 b group and 344 (84%) of 411 patients in the everolimus group.

201 nib group and 18.8 months (16.0-21.2) in the everolimus group.

202 e cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group.

203 = 0.003) and no leucopenia were seen in the Everolimus group.

204 The dropout rate was more pronounced in the Everolimus group.

205 in FKSI-DRS scores between the nivolumab and everolimus groups was 1.6 (95% CI 1.4-1.9; p<0.0001) wit

206 Everolimus has activity in relapsed DLBCL.

207 eamine and an mTOR pathway inhibitor such as everolimus has potential to improve treatment of cystino

208 cancer cell lines the mTOR inhibitor RAD001 (everolimus) has significantly inhibited SK1 and VEGF exp

209 abozantinib and 16.5 months (14.7-18.8) with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66 [95% CI 0.53-0.83]; p

210 Purpose Everolimus improved median progression-free survival by

211 Evidence on everolimus in breast cancer has placed hyperglycemia amo

212 combination of a somatostatin analogue with everolimus in lung and thymic carcinoids.

213 tly, biomarkers that predict the efficacy of everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) pat

214 on by apitolisib was less effective than was everolimus in mRCC, likely because full blockade of PI3K

215 ty of cabozantinib versus the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinom

216 This study evaluated the activity of everolimus in patients with advanced/recurrent T or TC p

217 ociated with HRQoL improvement compared with everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced

218 ved immunosuppression with cyclosporin A and everolimus in the same target range of trough levels.

219 Dasatinib exhibited synergy with everolimus in the treatment of HGG cells at low nanomola

220 2007 and March 2014, 225 received open-label everolimus, including 172 patients (85%) randomly assign

221 In the phase 3 RADIANT-4 trial, everolimus increased progression-free survival compared

222 of HGPS TEBVs with the proposed therapeutic Everolimus, increases HGPS TEBV vasoactivity and increas

223 Everolimus inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor A

224 Given that everolimus is an incomplete inhibitor of the mTOR functi

225 As everolimus is approved for tamoxifen-resistant or relaps

226 Everolimus is the first targeted agent to show robust an

227 y and efficacy of pazopanib plus vorinostat, everolimus, lapatinib or trastuzumab, and MEK inhibitor

228 Importantly, everolimus led to rapid resolution of rejection as confi

229 The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus may be administered with exemestane to postme

230 We hypothesized that cotreatment with everolimus may improve the efficacy of dasatinib in PDGF

231 Conclusion Everolimus may induce durable disease control in a high

232 ppression, our preliminary data suggest that everolimus may provide an available means for effecting

233 ulse wave velocity remained stable with both everolimus (mean change from randomization to month 12,

234 nths, 95% CI 3.7-7.5) than in patients given everolimus (median not reached, NE-NE).

235 rim overall survival analysis indicated that everolimus might be associated with a reduction in the r

236 made a final rotation to either pazopanib or everolimus monotherapy (rotating arm) or initiated evero

237 %]); those with a suspected association with everolimus monotherapy were stomatitis (26 [62%] of 42)

238 posure everolimus, (n=117), or high-exposure everolimus (n=130).

239 signed to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57).

240 ly assigned to placebo (n=119), low-exposure everolimus, (n=117), or high-exposure everolimus (n=130)

241 he phase 1 portion of the trial (three given everolimus on days 1-10, and six given everolimus on day

242 given everolimus on days 1-10, and six given everolimus on days 1-14) without any dose-limiting toxic

243 l culture experiments examined the effect of everolimus on endothelial integrity.

244 mine the impact of the broad mTOR inhibitor, everolimus, on residual HIV burden, transcriptional gene

245 ceive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day.

246 four) to receive nivolumab every 2 weeks or everolimus once per day.

247 rs treated with nivolumab and/or ipilimumab, everolimus or docetaxel in phase 3 clinical trials, reve

248 convert from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) to everolimus or remain on standard CNI therapy.

249 henolic acid (MPA; n = 38), or mTORi (either everolimus or sirolimus, n = 33, target trough levels 3-

250 cophenolic Acid (MPA, n=38) or mTORi (either everolimus or sirolimus, n=33, target trough levels 3-8

251 y software, to receive placebo, low-exposure everolimus, or high-exposure everolimus.

252 s nivolumab and pembrolizumab, lenalidomide, everolimus, or observation in selected patients.

253 tacrolimus, a combination of these 3 drugs, everolimus, or water.

254 stents, 96% of the patients received either everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents.

255 ngs of longer progression-free survival with everolimus, our findings suggest that everolimus delays

256 and recipient survival or graft function for everolimus over current standard of care.

257 We evaluated the efficacy of everolimus plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic

258 maciclib plus fulvestrant (0.44; 0.28-0.70), everolimus plus exemestane (0.42; 0.28-0.67), and, in pa

259 iver transplant recipients showed that early everolimus plus reduced-dose tacrolimus (EVR + rTAC) led

260 ic renal cell carcinoma patients showed that everolimus promoted high expansion of FoxP3 (+)Helios(+)

261 1 (mTORC1) with the clinically approved drug everolimus (RAD001) or inhibition of mTORC1/2 with the e

262 ed at 4 to 6 weeks posttransplant to receive everolimus + reduced-exposure tacrolimus (EVR + rTAC; n

263 Increasing concentrations of everolimus resulted in a dose-dependent decrease of endo

264 Prolonged exposure to everolimus significantly improved the CNS retention of d

265 interstitial therapy of both paclitaxel and everolimus significantly reduced GBM growth and improved

266 g repurposing analysis further revealed that everolimus, temsirolimus, and pomalidomide are predicted

267 s to establish the maximum tolerated dose of everolimus that could be combined with R-CHOP-21.

268 In Italy, a project, named Everolimus: the road to long-term functioning, was initi

269 Whereas everolimus therapy did not have an overall effect on cel

270 he inhibition of mTOR and is associated with everolimus therapy for breast cancer.

271 e entire cohort, participants who maintained everolimus time-averaged trough levels >5 ng/mL during t

272 ar PFS benefit as wild type from addition of everolimus to exemestane.

273 inetics (~3% per day) of both paclitaxel and everolimus to maintain a fixed combination ratio of the

274 nistered the mTORC1 inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus to mice.

275 cardiac events occurred in 1.1% and 4.2% of everolimus-treated and CNI-treated patients, respectivel

276 Everolimus treatment also led to decreased PD-1 expressi

277 Adjunctive everolimus treatment significantly reduced seizure frequ

278 l failure was not suspected to be related to everolimus treatment, but respiratory failure was suspec

279 one patient) were suspected to be related to everolimus treatment.

280 initiation (de novo or <6-month conversion) everolimus trials (n = 279), decline in estimated glomer

281 Time-averaged everolimus trough levels significantly correlated with g

282 mab, and the mTOR inhibitors temsirolimus or everolimus using 21-day cycles.

283 ss index from randomization was similar with everolimus versus CNI (month 24, -4.37 g/m versus -5.26

284 0.78-2.93) and death-censored graft loss in everolimus versus control (adjusted HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.

285 We compared Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in an investigat

286 Crossover from placebo to open-label everolimus was allowed on disease progression.

287 Everolimus was associated with a 52% reduction in the es

288 Conclusion Everolimus was associated with a median OS of 44 months

289 Everolimus was associated with a survival benefit of 6.3

290 Treatment with everolimus was associated with significant improvement i

291 Apitolisib in comparison with everolimus was associated with substantially more high-g

292 he strong synergism seen with paclitaxel and everolimus was then explored in vivo.

293 , and hyperglycaemia (three [7%]); those for everolimus were hyperglycaemia (seven [17%] of 42 patien

294 l patients who received at least one dose of everolimus were included.

295 Paclitaxel and everolimus were separately formulated into fibrous scaff

296 eatment of cells with an Akt1/2 inhibitor or everolimus, which acts on the Akt pathway, reduced Asn49

297 The everolimus with R-CHOP regimen should be tested against

298 ks after kidney transplantation to switch to everolimus with reduced TAC (EVR/rTAC) and steroid elimi

299 ovo heart transplant recipients received (1) everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI (cyclosporine) foll

300 These data provide the rationale to combine everolimus with standard treatment for DLBCL of rituxima