ライフサイエンスコーパス: immunosuppressive therapy

1 mmation necessitating corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy.

2 peutic approach than the current practice of immunosuppressive therapy.

3 uld be administered before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

4 fections in the posttransplant period due to immunosuppressive therapy.

5 se many patients with the disease respond to immunosuppressive therapy.

6 gnosis of cancer and are often refractory to immunosuppressive therapy.

7 used to develop a new type of pro-tolerance immunosuppressive therapy.

8 r by age, underlying diagnosis, or amount of immunosuppressive therapy.

9 on the choice of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) immunosuppressive therapy.

10 n is similar to the risk with other types of immunosuppressive therapy.

11 ive stress, and inflammation associated with immunosuppressive therapy.

12 n, even though recipients undergo aggressive immunosuppressive therapy.

13 ffects AIDS patients and patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy.

14 is requiring systemic corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy.

15 ecessarily prompt the discontinuation of the immunosuppressive therapy.

16 ly tolerant patients and patients on regular immunosuppressive therapy.

17 ade (RASB) compared with individuals without immunosuppressive therapy.

18 serum PLA2R antibodies who had not received immunosuppressive therapy.

19 aplastic anemia remain pancytopenic despite immunosuppressive therapy.

20 r of which may be particularly refractory to immunosuppressive therapy.

21 nt, which, in this series, required systemic immunosuppressive therapy.

22 intervention with ribavirin or alteration in immunosuppressive therapy.

23 ity for surgery, or inform administration of immunosuppressive therapy.

24 standing of this entity in the era of modern immunosuppressive therapy.

25 e receiving conventional doses of first-line immunosuppressive therapy.

26 oping PTLD without the need for reduction in immunosuppressive therapy.

27 iopsy findings are reliable after initiating immunosuppressive therapy.

28 clinical practice and determine the need for immunosuppressive therapy.

29 higher disease activity and a more intensive immunosuppressive therapy.

30 r the withdrawal, or during the tapering, of immunosuppressive therapy.

31 to influence positively even under systemic immunosuppressive therapy.

32 ll patients received and failed conventional immunosuppressive therapy.

33 mitations of IGRAs in the setting of chronic immunosuppressive therapy.

34 of islet morphology and function without any immunosuppressive therapy.

35 d with intrinsic risk factors and concurrent immunosuppressive therapy.

36 d in transplant patients taking rapamycin as immunosuppressive therapy.

37 ve clinical outcomes in addition to standard immunosuppressive therapy.

38 al for optimizing tailored administration of immunosuppressive therapy.

39 nerate tumors, especially in the presence of immunosuppressive therapy.

40 d in patients with AIE who receive long-term immunosuppressive therapy.

41 -M2 antibodies they decrease during UDCA and immunosuppressive therapy.

42 fractory celiac disease that is sensitive to immunosuppressive therapy.

43 hibitor induced carcinoma, a complication of immunosuppressive therapy.

44 with a poor prognosis and modest response to immunosuppressive therapy.

45 prior statin use and should be treated with immunosuppressive therapy.

46 mmon and major problem in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy.

47 resent a novel approach for regenerative and immunosuppressive therapy.

48 usion in a patient who was already receiving immunosuppressive therapy.

49 ase progression, complications, and need for immunosuppressive therapy.

50 function in the absence of ongoing systemic immunosuppressive therapy.

51 multidisciplinary approach and treated with immunosuppressive therapy.

52 structive uropathy, and overall intensity of immunosuppressive therapy.

53 P = .009) than those receiving conservative/immunosuppressive therapy.

54 on, thereby encouraging prompt initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

55 reduced lipid accumulation independently of immunosuppressive therapy.

56 n alpha-N-acetylglucosaminidase (NAGLU) plus immunosuppressive therapy.

57 symptoms despite continued use of intensive immunosuppressive therapies.

58 se with rheumatic diseases or who are taking immunosuppressive therapies.

59 n important determinant of responsiveness to immunosuppressive therapies.

60 s, functional parameters, comorbidities, and immunosuppressive therapies.

61 a target for development of organ-selective immunosuppressive therapies.

62 clinical syndrome was refractory to multiple immunosuppressive therapies.

63 ccurred in 50% of patients treated with mild immunosuppressive therapies.

64 mplications for the development of localized immunosuppressive therapies.

65 n of tissue pathology and may be amenable to immunosuppressive therapies.

66 D, which is currently treated primarily with immunosuppressive therapies.

67 r, and 5 patients were managed by decreasing immunosuppressive therapies.

68 ity from infectious diseases, independent of immunosuppressive therapies.

69 presence of immunocompromising conditions or immunosuppressive therapies.

70 osporin A (CsA) or FK506 is a cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapies.

71 tation, exogenous insulin administration and immunosuppressive therapies.

72 ients before they receive other, potentially immunosuppressive, therapies.

73 pVL), symptomatic disease, and the impact of immunosuppressive therapy, 38 women living with HTLV-1 i

74 3633 (10%) were IC; cancer (44%), nonsteroid immunosuppressive therapy (44%), and HIV (18%) were most

75 ion of prednisolone maintenance and/or other immunosuppressive therapy (50% versus 59%), steroid depe

76 gic management is complicated by the risk of immunosuppressive therapy abrogating the antimalignancy

77 ng could be a useful tool in individualizing immunosuppressive therapy according to the risk of ACR o

78 Current immunosuppressive therapy after heart transplantation ei

79 rm graft survival that necessitates lifelong immunosuppressive therapy after renal transplant.

80 Tacrolimus (TAC), the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy after solid organ transplantat

81 tological data 58% patients (32/55) received immunosuppressive therapy alone and 25.4% (14/55) receiv

82 Intensity of immunosuppressive therapies also influences the risk for

83 with cancer who undergo certain cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapies and have HBV infection or pr

84 gnificantly greater than other high-efficacy immunosuppressive therapies and similar to other AHSCT s

85 r, or who have other conditions that require immunosuppressive therapies and/or solid organ or stem c

86 Before tocilizumab therapy, conventional immunosuppressive therapy and 1 or more biologic agents

87 atment in the absence of additional systemic immunosuppressive therapy and a control group of fifteen

88 ase series of patients treated with systemic immunosuppressive therapy and additional amniotic membra

89 interesting trend toward better responses of immunosuppressive therapy and an association with the pr

90 High-dose immunosuppressive therapy and autologous hematopoietic s

91 ive therapy alone and 25.4% (14/55) received immunosuppressive therapy and catheter ablation.

92 least two immunosuppressive therapies or one immunosuppressive therapy and chronic intravenous immuno

93 al systemic toxicities of corticosteroid and immunosuppressive therapy and death.

94 The latter include patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy and elderly subjects, particul

95 nary histoplasmosis while receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy and have an ophthalmic examina

96 risk is related to intensity and duration of immunosuppressive therapy and inversely to recipient age

97 ethodologies also have direct application to immunosuppressive therapy and other immunosuppressive di

98 positive donor in this study received triple immunosuppressive therapy and prophylactic CMV treatment

99 o transplanted tissues with short courses of immunosuppressive therapy and that with regard to tolera

100 nor antibodies is taken to reflect effective immunosuppressive therapy and to predict a favorable out

101 vates in kidney transplant recipients during immunosuppressive therapy and triggers BKPyV-associated

102 ents with catastrophic APS also benefit from immunosuppressive therapy and/or plasma exchange, wherea

103 patitis E virus (HEV) following reduction of immunosuppressive therapy and/or treatment with ribaviri

104 ission requiring escalation or resumption of immunosuppressive therapy), and deaths were recorded.

105 Altogether, 102 of the 110 patients received immunosuppressive therapy, and 56 received an intracardi

106 gnosis was associated with responsiveness to immunosuppressive therapy, and an elevated CD8(+) TSCM p

107 Organ histology, response to immunosuppressive therapy, and biochemical and immunolog

108 Vector was administered without immunosuppressive therapy, and participants were followe

109 nfections requiring more than 1 debridement, immunosuppressive therapy, and the exchange of removable

110 1A) rats were treated with a short course of immunosuppressive therapy (anti-alphabeta-TCR monoclonal

111 can move, and are affected by HIV infection, immunosuppressive therapies, antituberculosis treatments

112 e comprehensive understanding of how current immunosuppressive therapies applied to organ transplanta

113 Immunosuppressive therapies are effective, but reduced n

114 that patients with IED treated with systemic immunosuppressive therapy are at increased risk of malig

115 susceptibility to infection, and response to immunosuppressive therapy are influenced in part by his/

116 ge at the onset of first symptoms as well as immunosuppressive therapy are likely associated with mor

117 seroconstellation, HLA-DR7, and intensity of immunosuppressive therapy are significant risk factors f

118 t cases and determination of when changes in immunosuppressive therapy are warranted.

119 lowing antiretroviral therapy or reversal of immunosuppressive therapy, as the newly reconstituted im

120 n plus GVHD prophylaxis group were free from immunosuppressive therapy at 24 months compared with 18

121 Thirteen patients (43%) were receiving immunosuppressive therapy at the time of initiation of i

122 Although immunosuppressive therapy benefits some patients, trial

123 Adults with autoimmune disease treated with immunosuppressive therapy (biologic or nonbiologic) were

124 network are investigated as drug targets for immunosuppressive therapy, but the selective action of S

125 tervention group with additional steering of immunosuppressive therapy by levels of virus-specific T

126 results in a similar eGFR, and personalizes immunosuppressive therapy by lowering exposure to immuno

127 Steering immunosuppressive therapy by virus-specific T cell level

128 Additional steering of immunosuppressive therapy by virus-specific T cell level

129 ith hematologic malignancy, transplantation, immunosuppressive therapy (calcineurin inhibitors, antit

130 Immunosuppressive therapy can produce hematologic respon

131 dies to discuss whether mTOR inhibitor-based immunosuppressive therapy can reduce the magnitude of CM

132 ansplantation, including decreases in use of immunosuppressive therapy, chronic GVHD and its symptoms

133 imab-tacrolimus-mycophenolate-corticosteroid immunosuppressive therapy, CMV disease rates increased i

134 mune checkpoint inhibitors and initiation of immunosuppressive therapy, consisting of intravenous met

135 and an elevated CD8(+) TSCM population after immunosuppressive therapy correlated with treatment fail

136 Two lung transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy developed pruritic, brown plaq

137 Active disease or immunosuppressive therapy did not impair the assay perfo

138 , steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (SAIDs), immunosuppressive therapy drugs (immunomodulatory therap

139 In the current immunosuppressive therapy era, vessel thrombosis is the

140 In more severe GVHD, prolonged exposure to immunosuppressive therapies, failure to achieve toleranc

141 e the possibility that empiric reductions in immunosuppressive therapy for all kidney transplant reci

142 rticipants were identified from the Systemic Immunosuppressive Therapy for Eye Diseases (SITE) cohort

143 Patients were identified from the Systemic Immunosuppressive Therapy for Eye Diseases Cohort Study.

144 rticipants were identified from the Systemic Immunosuppressive Therapy for Eye Diseases Cohort Study.

145 BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Immunosuppressive therapy for inflammatory bowel disease

146 D-1/L1); 47 of these patients (82%) required immunosuppressive therapy for recurrent IMDC, and all re

147 was as effective as continuous conventional immunosuppressive therapy for the induction and maintena

148 In the Supportive Versus Immunosuppressive Therapy for the Treatment of Progressi

149 There are limited data on the safety of immunosuppressive therapy for these patients.

150 erythematosus that have been controlled with immunosuppressive therapy for three years.

151 vailable therapy (maintenance or increase in immunosuppressive therapy) for HCV-associated cryoglobul

152 ned > 5 mug/L, the trough level used in oral immunosuppressive therapy, for (95% credible interval) 1

153 ous uveitis requiring corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy from 9 referral eye centers in

154 Beneficial clinical response to immunosuppressive therapies has been demonstrated which

155 olled trial, although the evidence for other immunosuppressive therapies has been derived mainly from

156 plateaued in the USA in the past 20 years as immunosuppressive therapies have failed to reverse disea

157 mphangiogenesis in immunobiology, the impact immunosuppressive therapies have on the lymphatic system

158 High-dose immunosuppressive therapy (HDIT) with autologous hematop

159 n that all patients undergoing chemotherapy, immunosuppressive therapy, hematopoietic stem cell trans

160 s and their colitis is resistant to standard immunosuppressive therapy, HSCT should be considered ear

161 Immunosuppressive therapies (ie, intravenous cyclophosph

162 em cell or organ transplantation, nonsteroid immunosuppressive therapy, immunoglobulin deficiency, as

163 pportive-care group) or supportive care plus immunosuppressive therapy (immunosuppression group) for

164 Immunosuppressive therapy improved patients' HRCT scan s

165 Immunosuppressive therapy improved the radiographic abno

166 tion, which may occur with a wide variety of immunosuppressive therapies in benign or malignant disea

167 of toxicities of systemic corticosteroid and immunosuppressive therapies in the trial.

168 We assessed the longitudinal requirement for immunosuppressive therapy in 339 patients treated with t

169 However it supports the immunosuppressive therapy in acute situations as in crit

170 There are anecdotal reports of immunosuppressive therapy in autoimmune retinopathy; how

171 should not be used as justification to delay immunosuppressive therapy in children with typical sympt

172 e of multicenter clinical trials to optimize immunosuppressive therapy in high-risk recipients and ro

173 Although current immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipient

174 thway, allows for calcineurin-inhibitor free immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplantation but

175 to assess the clinical benefits of adjusting immunosuppressive therapy in liver recipients based on i

176 ssed the effectiveness of a decision aid for immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis.

177 sregulation in MDS and summarize the role of immunosuppressive therapy in MDS.

178 rstanding the possible risks and benefits of immunosuppressive therapy in patients with cardiovascula

179 t that Rtx might replace St-Cp as first-line immunosuppressive therapy in patients with idiopathic me

180 s represents a noninvasive way of monitoring immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant patients.

181 steroid-free regimens compared with a triple immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant recipients

182 risk of HBVr under different combinations of immunosuppressive therapy in rheumatic patients.

183 ality for early diagnosis and treatment with immunosuppressive therapy in selected patients can impro

184 ng cell type for use as a cell-based adjunct immunosuppressive therapy in solid organ transplant reci

185 The clinical response to immunosuppressive therapy in suspected autoimmune enceph

186 rventions such as immunoglobulin therapy and immunosuppressive therapy in the care of the patient wit

187 rt review of pediatric patients treated with immunosuppressive therapy in the uveitis clinic at the C

188 ts with particular focus on the evidence for immunosuppressive therapy in these patients.

189 Available evidence to guide immunosuppressive therapy in this setting is limited but

190 T cell depletion has potential as a robust, immunosuppressive therapy in transplantation.

191 BcAb + HBsAg- NHL patients treated with mild immunosuppressive therapies, in order to detect an occul

192 atients with noninfectious uveitis requiring immunosuppressive therapy, in which posterior segment in

193 r age, male sex, type of cardiomyopathy, and immunosuppressive therapy (including switch to mTOR inhi

194 s were undergoing varied mono or combination immunosuppressive therapy, including 36 who were receivi

195 Daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapies induce remission, but mortal

196 Treatment decision-making regarding immunosuppressive therapy is challenging for individuals

197 Following organ transplantation, lifelong immunosuppressive therapy is required to prevent the hos

198 Immunosuppressive therapy is the standard of care for th

199 Group 1 (Gp1) (controls, n=6) received no immunosuppressive therapy (IS) and no graft.

200 NAC, without concurrent plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy, is effective in preventing an

201 Growth factors can be combined with immunosuppressive therapy (IST) and may improve response

202 etween specific Treg subsets and response to immunosuppressive therapy (IST) as well as their in vitr

203 defined as a lack of response to first-line immunosuppressive therapy (IST) with antithymocyte globu

204 for second line after failure to respond to immunosuppressive therapy (IST).

205 been widely reported in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy (IT); however, few data are av

206 Within 3 months, immunosuppressive therapy led to a sustained 81% reducti

207 After reducing immunosuppressive therapy, levels of BKPyV-specific CD4

208 r investigation into SPMs as alternatives to immunosuppressive therapies like steroids.

209 recalcitrant chronic itch that failed other immunosuppressive therapies markedly improve when treate

210 of anti-HLA IgG with FcMonoIgG may minimize immunosuppressive therapies, maximize the number of dono

211 Immunosuppressive therapy may be helpful in limiting dis

212 eactivation of hepatitis B in the context of immunosuppressive therapy may be severe and potentially

213 utcomes, uveitis patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy may experience a deterioration

214 lled with or were intolerant to conventional immunosuppressive therapy (median number, 3 [1-5]).

215 ease activity (proteinuria) in patients with immunosuppressive therapy (n=101) or supportive care (n=

216 ve care unit (ICU) admissions, active use of immunosuppressive therapy, neutropenia, or bacteremia du

217 cade emerges as a promising new strategy for immunosuppressive therapy of large-vessel vasculitis.

218 atients, we analyzed the impact of EVR-based immunosuppressive therapy on CMV replication and disease

219 ients and to better understand the impact of immunosuppressive therapy on IgE sensitization, we prosp

220 es, and previous treatment with at least two immunosuppressive therapies or one immunosuppressive the

221 ancytopenia, can be treated effectively with immunosuppressive therapy or allogeneic transplantation.

222 namely, the reduction or discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy or the switch from calcineurin

223 OR, 5.65; P < .05), and the intensity of the immunosuppressive therapy (OR, 1.53; P < .01) as indepen

224 1.11; 95% CI, 1.08-1.14; P = .0001), use of immunosuppressive therapy (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.18-2.44;

225 s that were subjected to diabetes induction, immunosuppressive therapy, or islet allotransplantation.

226 oaches are limited by the adverse effects of immunosuppressive therapy over the lifetime of the recip

227 Nineteen patients received immunosuppressive therapies: overall response (OR) was 4

228 rvival of islet allografts without any other immunosuppressive therapy (P=0.0003), and the protection

229 t or refractory (p=0.048) and need long-term immunosuppressive therapy (p=0.0213).

230 lasmosis is a known complication of systemic immunosuppressive therapy, particularly among patients w

231 ransplant recipients complicates maintenance immunosuppressive therapy, particularly in patients with

232 s of HBV-infected persons, persons requiring immunosuppressive therapy, persons with end-stage renal

233 patients in a prospective phase 1-2 study of immunosuppressive therapy plus eltrombopag.

234 significantly improved when given high-dose immunosuppressive therapy postoperatively.

235 enal function and were treated with the same immunosuppressive therapy, receiving a minimum dose of c

236 Immunosuppressive therapy remains an important treatment

237 The effect of immunosuppressive therapy remains speculative.

238 The intensive and prolonged immunosuppressive therapy required to prevent or treat g

239 d in candidate patients for chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy requires further investigation

240 Belatacept-based immunosuppressive therapy resulted in higher and more se

241 l Vasculitis who was treated with aggressive immunosuppressive therapy resulting in a favorable visua

242 splant recipients receiving tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive therapy similar clinical outcomes may

243 ith the use of an intensified posttransplant immunosuppressive therapy starting at day 0 combined wit

244 Various other immunosuppressive therapy studies have also reported suc

245 ntly, in patients treated with long-standing immunosuppressive therapy, such as in inflammatory bowel

246 bidity and mortality in patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy, such as solid organ and hemat

247 ance between infectious risk and response to immunosuppressive therapy, such as that required for aut

248 tients with severe aplastic anemia receiving immunosuppressive therapy, telomere length was unrelated

249 Immunosuppressive therapies that block the CD40/CD154 co

250 first case of fatal JCV encephalopathy after immunosuppressive therapy that included ruxolitinib.

251 roup receiving metformin, independently from immunosuppressive therapy that was similar among groups,

252 Despite advances in immunosuppressive therapies, the rate of chronic transpl

253 In patients not receiving active immunosuppressive therapy, the most likely culprits are

254 resection of the teratoma and treatment with immunosuppressive therapy, the patient progressed to a m

255 or 6-12 months after discontinuation of such immunosuppressive therapies to protect against HBV react

256 otection, and the potential contributions of immunosuppressive therapies to tumor induction.

257 increased from 21% at the time of failure on immunosuppressive therapy to 68% by late PRA after weani

258 ive immune response, thus enabling exogenous immunosuppressive therapy to be significantly reduced or

259 t case report of a patient receiving chronic immunosuppressive therapy to develop orbital inflammatio

260 ssion and a greater requirement for adjuvant immunosuppressive therapy to induce complete remission.

261 ssion and a greater requirement for adjuvant immunosuppressive therapy to induce complete remission.

262 The addition of immunosuppressive therapy to intensive supportive care i

263 t approaches seek to limit administration of immunosuppressive therapy to patients at risk for life-t

264 and in kidney transplant patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy to prevent organ rejection.

265 Treatment of LN usually involves immunosuppressive therapy, typically with mycophenolate

266 Immunosuppressive therapies using calcineurin inhibitors

267 e results may have clinical implications for immunosuppressive therapy using calcineurin inhibitors.

268 Among those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, visual function improved in 5

269 A systemic immunosuppressive therapy was administered in all patien

270 rly or rituximab late, and glucocorticoid or immunosuppressive therapy was allowed at study entry.

271 The net state of immunosuppressive therapy was assessed by the modified V

272 The addition of eltrombopag to immunosuppressive therapy was associated with markedly h

273 9 patients with CVID and GLILD who completed immunosuppressive therapy was performed.

274 Immunosuppressive therapy was recommended in cases of de

275 ted to be due to the underlying disease, and immunosuppressive therapy was scheduled.

276 Cyclosporine as the sole posttransplant immunosuppressive therapy was tapered and discontinued a

277 combination with cyclosporine, as first-line immunosuppressive therapy, was evaluated prospectively i

278 oderate/severe scleritis, requiring systemic immunosuppressive therapy, was present in 25 eyes (69%).

279 patients who received SRL-based maintenance immunosuppressive therapy were determined using polymera

280 In contrast, malignancy and immunosuppressive therapy were each assigned -1 point, o

281 Participants with a history of using immunosuppressive therapy were identified in clinics, an

282 The outcomes of immunosuppressive therapy, when added to supportive care

283 h SLE have been managed largely with empiric immunosuppressive therapies, which are associated with s

284 ents with lytic BKPyV infection is to reduce immunosuppressive therapy, which increases the risk of g

285 In total, 124 patients (49%) received immunosuppressive therapy, which predominantly consisted

286 Immunosuppressive therapy with antithymocyte globulin (A

287 of the extrinsic coagulation pathway during immunosuppressive therapy with ATG may have broader impl

288 , in addition to conventional posttransplant immunosuppressive therapy with cyclosporine, markedly at

289 Many younger patients who respond to immunosuppressive therapy with drugs such as antithymocy

290 We combined standard immunosuppressive therapy with eltrombopag in previously

291 Immunosuppressive therapy with mammalian target of rapam

292 eatment groups (24/168 hr) received standard immunosuppressive therapy with tacrolimus.

293 cific inflammatory responses and complements immunosuppressive therapy with tacrolimus.

294 The patient was treated with immunosuppressive therapies, with rituximab demonstratin

295 patients with aplastic anemia refractory to immunosuppressive therapy, with frequent multilineage re

296 ere observed among the patients who received immunosuppressive therapy, with no change in the rate of

297 with checkpoint inhibitors, and any previous immunosuppressive therapy within the 30 days before stud

298 ction off immunosuppression were returned to immunosuppressive therapy without evidence of rejection

299 ERT was resumed 8 weeks after starting immunosuppressive therapy without inducing a rebound of

300 The primary endpoint, freedom from immunosuppressive therapy without resumption at 12 month