ライフサイエンスコーパス: ineligible

1 ng wounds or active bleeding conditions were ineligible.

2 Five participants became ineligible.

3 astatic urothelial cancer who were cisplatin ineligible.

4 ated for refractory or relapsed disease were ineligible.

5 involvement, or hypothalamic syndrome) were ineligible.

6 revious BRAF or MEK inhibitor treatment were ineligible.

7 tests (not explained by prescriptions) were ineligible.

8 GA use during a 1-year look-back period were ineligible.

9 therapy (BCT ) who were initially considered ineligible.

10 ion, or > two prior anticancer regimens were ineligible.

11 Advanced therapeutic treatment was ineligible.

12 Eighteen out of 44 patients were ineligible.

13 2006; four patients canceled, and four were ineligible.

14 reened, of whom 1,038 (23.2%) were treatment ineligible.

15 ve human papillomavirus-negative tumors were ineligible.

16 and two enrolled patients who were cisplatin ineligible.

17 12 (1%) women were found to be ineligible.

18 creening, of whom 111 851 (94.6%) women were ineligible.

19 h a short estimated prognosis (<5 days) were ineligible.

20 died and 3 participants (4 eyes) were found ineligible.

21 atients enrolled, 34 women withdrew, 21 were ineligible, 12 underwent ALND only, and 689 had SLN surg

22 ntial donor calls, 92 (11.6%) were medically ineligible, 326 (41.1%) voluntarily did not proceed or a

23 Of these, 44 (30%) were deemed ineligible (43 by central review).

24 10.6% (n=724) of SHIFT-type patients became ineligible, 77.3% (n=4188) and 77.3% (n=5287) remained i

25 ty and activity of the regimen in transplant-ineligible adults with histologically confirmed relapsed

26 ion group were withdrawn because they became ineligible after allocation.

27 One patient with thymic carcinoma was deemed ineligible after enrolment and did not receive protocol

28 patients eligible at standard assessment but ineligible after MR imaging was 11% (95% confidence inte

29 on, mammography, and/or ultrasonography) but ineligible after MR imaging was a study outcome.

30 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (3

31 ion (excluding only patients who were deemed ineligible after randomisation, those who withdrew from

32 mised allocation but excluded patients found ineligible after randomisation.

33 e candidates to undergo PBI, was found to be ineligible after undergoing MR imaging.

34 One patient was ineligible (alanine aminotransferase concentration was a

35 anadian sites (801 individuals screened; 274 ineligible and 151 declined).

36 Over time, a minority of patients became ineligible and an even smaller minority became eligible.

37 e transplantation eligible and those who are ineligible and for patients with relapsed or refractory

38 2%, 77-87) in the ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant cohort.

39 on-responders and ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant patients received open-label d

40 on-responder, and ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant patients, and was well tolerat

41 sponders, and 235 ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant patients.

42 ders, and 16 (7%) ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant patients; adverse events leadi

43 er the sepsis protocol or usual care, 3 were ineligible and the remaining 209 completed the study and

44 We excluded five episodes as ineligible and three because of inadequate documentation

45 n the pregabalin group were determined to be ineligible and were excluded from the analyses.

46 (36 LNG-IUS, 31 C-IUD; 2 declined and 2 were ineligible) and 134 ART-using (65 LNG-IUS, 67 C-IUD; 1 d

47 6 participants screened, 78 were found to be ineligible, and 18 declined participation.

48 Twenty-six were ineligible, and 27 were randomized (2:1) to FUS thalamot

49 , 77.3% (n=4188) and 77.3% (n=5287) remained ineligible, and 4.6% (n=252) and 4.9% (n=335) of non-SHI

50 One patient was deemed ineligible, and not evaluable, before treatment initiati

51 populations, including T-DM1 eligible, T-DM1 ineligible, and T-DM1 relapsed/refractory.

52 ort); two in the dose-escalation cohort were ineligible at the day of scheduled study initiation.

53 VRd group and 31 in the Rd group were deemed ineligible based mainly on missing, insufficient, or ear

54 r primary ICD implantation, 304 (67.9%) were ineligible because of left ventricular ejection fraction

55 ne group and five in the control group) were ineligible because of pre-existing metastases and were t

56 209 patients were screened, of whom ten were ineligible because of study site violations.

57 HHs with a child aged 6-23 months, 16% were ineligible because they had resided in the neighborhood

58 9078 women were ineligible because they had undergone a hysterectomy and

59 ad by the site investigator, were considered ineligible by the central reader.

60 After excluding ineligible cases, 249 patients with PACG were included i

61 250 cells/microL, HAART received), and HAART ineligible (CD4 cell count of 250 cells/microL).

62 5% CI, 48.3%-61.5%) in rotavirus vaccine age-ineligible children to 20.0% (95% CI, 12.4%-30.4%) in ag

63 sease trends in vaccine-eligible and vaccine-ineligible children.

64 the previous 4 years and to cases in vaccine-ineligible children.

65 s were administered to those in the auto-HCT-ineligible cohort (n = 34).

66 ohort and 1.4 and 5.8 months in the auto-HCT-ineligible cohort respectively.

67 T-failed cohort and 6 months in the auto-HCT-ineligible cohort, independently assessed objective resp

68 Because of incomplete, questionable, or ineligible data, 57 190 wounds were not included.

69 We excluded 1413 (61%) women who were ineligible, declined to participate, had impending eclam

70 Blacks were more likely to be ineligible due to neutropenia (14% versus 3%, P < 0.001)

71 ever, substantial numbers of patients remain ineligible due to the lack of expression of the restrict

72 After exclusion of 145 ineligible episodes, we analysed 2259 index episodes of

73 e had large vessel occlusion strokes but are ineligible for (or refractory to) intravenous tissue pla

74 e not yet in HIV care, and who would thus be ineligible for a LAM test under current guidelines.

75 stem-cell transplantation, or were otherwise ineligible for allogeneic stem-cell transplantation were

76 but benefits were also reported in patients ineligible for alteplase treatment.

77 treatment options for stage I NSCLC patients ineligible for anatomic lobectomy.

78 All were ineligible for anatomic lobectomy; of those receiving SB

79 ineligible for, previously intolerant of, or ineligible for and intolerant of peginterferon alfa plus

80 was significantly higher than among children ineligible for ART (incidence rate ratio: 8.20; 95% CI:3

81 Among children ineligible for ART at enrollment, 6 children died (morta

82 ponse rate among patients with DLBCL who are ineligible for auto-HCT or who experienced failure with

83 ents with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who were ineligible for autologous hematopoietic cell transplanta

84 r two or more prior chemotherapy regimens if ineligible for autologous hematopoietic cell transplanta

85 yeloma (NDMM) >/=65 years of age or who were ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation.

86 f induction therapy for patients eligible or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation.

87 nts with relapsed and refractory HL who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASC

88 actory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation have

89 or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation havi

90 th newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation to r

91 th newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation, the

92 ctory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation.

93 tients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation.

94 ith newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation.

95 d non-match substudies for patients who were ineligible for biomarker-driven substudies.

96 and as destination therapy in those who are ineligible for cardiac transplantation.

97 with advanced urothelial cancer (UC) who are ineligible for cisplatin, outcomes remain poor.

98 th metastatic urothelial carcinoma are often ineligible for cisplatin-based treatments.

99 These comorbidities usually render patients ineligible for clinical trials and enormous uncertainty

100 ronary artery disease, 218 (22%) were deemed ineligible for coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

101 in patients with refractory angina who were ineligible for coronary revascularization.

102 tension were greater among patients with OSA ineligible for CPAP therapy (1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.75), a

103 .34 (95% CI, 2.85-3.82) in patients with OSA ineligible for CPAP therapy, 5.84 (95% CI, 4.82-6.86) in

104 h symptomatic follicular lymphoma considered ineligible for curative irradiation.

105 Compared with people ineligible for DACA, the introduction of DACA was associ

106 t fully controlled by medication or who were ineligible for deep-brain stimulation surgery to undergo

107 itrectomy is recommended in patients who are ineligible for endoresection.

108 cluding individuals subsequently found to be ineligible for enrolment), and assessed non-inferiority

109 sion of individuals subsequently found to be ineligible for enrolment, 142 patients in the individual

110 Patients with LVEF >40%, ineligible for EPS, were followed up as control subjects

111 nscaval access for TAVR in patients who were ineligible for femoral artery access and had high or pro

112 ored over surgery in patients who are deemed ineligible for femoral TAVR and may be a safe alternativ

113 and/or have comorbidities that may make them ineligible for fludarabine-based treatment.

114 cil may improve outcome for patients who are ineligible for fludarabine-based treatments.

115 nt HCV recurrence but could make the patient ineligible for HCV(+) livers.

116 atients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation, a small, intraperi

117 atients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation.

118 n embolization (PVE), 15% of patients remain ineligible for hepatic resection due to insufficient hyp

119 ad newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous st

120 Patients were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy, which would put t

121 older adults who are eligible for and those ineligible for high-dose therapy with autologous stem-ce

122 HIV-1/HSV-2 coinfected pregnant Kenyan women ineligible for highly active antiretroviral therapy (CD4

123 CV) genotype 1 (GT-1) infection for patients ineligible for IFN.

124 In the intervention group, 79 women were ineligible for inclusion, 11 women refused screening, 59

125 In the control group, 75 women were ineligible for inclusion, 14 women refused screening, 56

126 This approach might be safer in children ineligible for intense regimens to spare the potential c

127 yeloid leukaemia in newly diagnosed patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and patients with

128 relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma ineligible for intensive chemotherapy or stem-cell trans

129 years or older with previously untreated AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were enrolled.

130 atients with acute myeloid leukemia who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

131 years old with treatment-naive AML and were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

132 durable remissions in older adults with AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy.

133 asurable lesion to be eligible, and who were ineligible for intensive chemotherpy or stem-cell transp

134 roke patients within the t-PA window who are ineligible for IV t-PA but have a large vascular occlusi

135 and aortoiliac stenosis are often considered ineligible for kidney transplantation, although kidney t

136 LAA exclusion devices is lacking in patients ineligible for long-term OAC.

137 dividuals with life-limiting illness who are ineligible for long-term oxygen therapy.

138 progression significant enough to make them ineligible for mechanical thrombectomy at arrival.

139 e globulin RIC regimen in pediatric patients ineligible for myeloablative transplantation, we complet

140 od Practice Guidance, as traded feedstock is ineligible for national GHG inventories.

141 increase overall life expectancy in patients ineligible for open repair, but can reduce aneurysm-rela

142 VAR reduces mortality in patients physically ineligible for open repair.

143 Patients had classical HL and were ineligible for or declined frontline chemotherapy.

144 ctory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who were ineligible for or had disease progression after autologo

145 All were either ineligible for or nonresponsive to photodynamic therapy,

146 bocytopenic patients with AML or MDS who are ineligible for other treatment and who are not receiving

147 I]), healthy children 5 to 10 years old (age-ineligible for PCV13), and HIV-infected adults (18 to 40

148 ny electronic information and were therefore ineligible for randomisation.

149 use they were nonrandomly assigned (n = 27), ineligible for randomization (n = 62), had no therapy (n

150 on therapy, and some of them are considered "ineligible for reperfusion." Spontaneous reperfusion and

151 ble cardioverter defibrillator, and who were ineligible for revascularisation procedures were randoml

152 In patients who are ineligible for revascularization procedures, there are f

153 Indirect protection of children who are age-ineligible for rotavirus vaccine has also been observed

154 recommend that patients should not be deemed ineligible for RT based on age alone, although a short l

155 Fifty patients (38%) were ineligible for S-ICD because of screening failure in eve

156 l, in which nearly half of participants were ineligible for same-day initiation mainly because of TB

157 newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for standard therapy who received 500 mg ivos

158 tients were aged 18 years or older, and were ineligible for standard therapy, with an Eastern Coopera

159 o had relapsed or refractory disease or were ineligible for standard treatments; had platelet counts

160 ma (DLBCL) is poor, particularly in patients ineligible for stem cell transplantation or who fail ind

161 nosed patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation.

162 th newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation (the NCRI Myelo

163 ion making in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for stem-cell transplantation, but further ex

164 th newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation.

165 th newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation.

166 rd therapy for patients with myeloma who are ineligible for stem-cell transplantation.

167 l in patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation.

168 % FPL) were compared to high-income controls ineligible for subsidies (>400% FPL) using a quasi-exper

169 of the relevant molecular targets are deemed ineligible for such targeted approaches.

170 Patients ineligible for surgery (n = 80) or whose lesions were po

171 basal cell carcinoma had to have been deemed ineligible for surgery.

172 ng patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis ineligible for surgery.

173 as the primary treatment in patients who are ineligible for surgery.

174 ity of life of patients with aortic stenosis ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

175 severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

176 carcinoma (HCC) patients, particularly those ineligible for surgical resection or liver transplant.

177 etastases refractory to systemic therapy and ineligible for surgical resection.

178 the clinic may potentially convert patients ineligible for targeted imaging and therapy to eligible

179 r (58% of patients) that made the candidates ineligible for testing.

180 ents with inoperable aortic stenosis who are ineligible for TF TAVR.

181 dvantage plans incorrectly excluded 10.3% as ineligible for the HEDIS high-risk prescribing measure.

182 ential for harm-eg, when 30% of patients are ineligible for the new regimen because of second-line dr

183 ders hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients ineligible for the only potential curative options for t

184 rs, because most of these patients have been ineligible for the pivotal trials of adjuvant trastuzuma

185 treatments are usually expanded to patients ineligible for the trial.

186 Seventy-six patients (62%) were ineligible for the ZUMA-1 trial.

187 rable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are ineligible for thermal ablative techniques.

188 ischaemic stroke 8-24 h after onset, who are ineligible for thrombolytic therapy.

189 ernative for patients who would otherwise be ineligible for transplant because of age or comorbidity.

190 evaluation and after being accepted or found ineligible for transplant).

191 erse events of death, delisting, or becoming ineligible for transplant; and (2) transplant rate.

192 We randomly assigned patients who were ineligible for transplantation to receive MPR-R (nine 4-

193 isone (MP) in patients with myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation was maintained after 5 ye

194 th newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation, with the greatest benefi

195 atients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for transplantation.

196 th cytogenetic high-risk disease or patients ineligible for transplantation.

197 d 11 (4%) women in the methyldopa group were ineligible for treatment (because they had only one qual

198 disproportionately affect patients who were ineligible for treatment (Veterans Affairs HR=2.35, CI 1

199 ing anatomies in patients who were otherwise ineligible for treatment, with acceptable safety.

200 entation, including among older children age-ineligible for vaccination, suggesting indirect protecti

201 der (55%, 0.45, 0.22-0.91, p=0.003) who were ineligible for vaccination.

202 spitalizations that extend to all age groups ineligible for vaccination.

203 onvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients ineligible for warfarin therapy.

204 emic attack) score >/=1, who were considered ineligible for warfarin.

205 apeutic option for patients considered to be ineligible for, and to mitigate mortality and morbidity

206 th newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for, or did not intend to have, immediate ASC

207 interferon alfa plus ribavirin; or medically ineligible for, previously intolerant of, or ineligible

208 ower, and were relapsed or refractory to, or ineligible for, standard treatments.

209 ere treated prior to the availability of, or ineligible for, telaprevir were the comparator group.

210 ew directly after randomisation and two were ineligible, giving a total sample of 333 patients (166 i

211 re similar in the ZUMA-1-eligible and ZUMA-1-ineligible groups (70% v 68%), there was a statistically

212 Patients were ineligible if alanine aminotransferase levels were highe

213 At thoracotomy, patients were deemed ineligible if an unanticipated pneumonectomy was indicat

214 were down-classified from statin eligible to ineligible if imaging revealed no coronary artery calciu

215 Patients were ineligible if there was a change in NIHSS of four or mor

216 Patients were ineligible if they had bilateral breast cancer or any ot

217 Infants were ineligible if they had major congenital anomalies or sev

218 Patients were ineligible if they had received anticancer therapy or su

219 Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central

220 Participants were ineligible if they were clinically critical (eg, suicide

221 g naturalization behavior among eligible and ineligible immigrants before and after the policy change

222 d a reduction in K6 score compared with DACA-ineligible individuals (adjusted incident risk ratio 0.7

223 sparities between SNAP participants and SNAP-ineligible individuals, by approximately 8% (10 DPPs per

224 esponder cohort, and 192 (82%, 77-87) in the ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant coh

225 e group; 11 (5%) non-responders, and 16 (7%) ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant pat

226 Non-responders and ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant pat

227 rates in treatment-naive, non-responder, and ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant pat

228 nded treatment), 205 non-responders, and 235 ineligible, intolerant, or ineligible and intolerant pat

229 DSA) offers two options for interferon (IFN)-ineligible/intolerant individuals with genotype 1 infect

230 ype 1 CHC than 24 weeks of SOF/RBV among IFN-ineligible/intolerant individuals, supporting the AASLD/

231 335 were ineligible, leaving 1692 eligible participants.

232 146 patients were ineligible, leaving 214 who were recruited to the study.

233 ine chemotherapy for patients with cisplatin-ineligible locally advanced or metastatic urothelial car

234 Thirteen patients in both arms were ineligible, mainly as a result of a good prognosis of GC

235 metry (MFC) to monitor MRD in 162 transplant-ineligible MM patients enrolled in the PETHEMA/GEM2010MA

236 Those screened for the trial and found ineligible (n = 2) were interviewed at an initial visit

237 sone (VMP) alone in patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

238 entricular ejection fraction </=35% but were ineligible on the basis of clinical guideline criteria.

239 ewly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma who were ineligible or not considered for stem-cell transplantati

240 atment option for patients who are cisplatin-ineligible or not suitable candidates for chemotherapy.

241 For those patients that are either ineligible or relapse after transplant, the treatment op

242 tion but excluding those who were considered ineligible or withdrew consent after randomisation) was

243 Ninety participants were deemed ineligible or withdrew consent.

244 Ineligible patients (n = 5) and those with combined LOH

245 Transplantation-ineligible patients aged 18 years and older with newly d

246 itation differences between DCP-eligible vs -ineligible patients and among stratified demographic and

247 t treated transplant-eligible and transplant-ineligible patients before and after publication of thro

248 reatment response and survival for cisplatin-ineligible patients compare favorably to other regimens.

249 Ineligible patients included those with deliberately pre

250 0.52-0.93]; p=0.014), and in transplantation-ineligible patients it was 66.8% (61.6-72.1) in the lena

251 l transplantation (ASCT), instead of ASCT in ineligible patients or as salvage.

252 When ineligible patients were excluded, the analysis of all e

253 Cisplatin-ineligible patients who might have been previously treat

254 , with one study reporting data in cisplatin-ineligible patients who received anti-PD-L1 monotherapy(

255 l and durable clinical response in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced UC and is associated w

256 -arm, phase 2 study (KEYNOTE-052), cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial cancer who

257 d urothelial carcinoma, especially cisplatin-ineligible patients with high-risk features who do not c

258 ety of first-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectab

259 ine treatment in February 2020 for cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic

260 ffer an advantage over VD in transplantation-ineligible patients with myeloma treated in US community

261 gimen for both transplantation-eligible and -ineligible patients with myeloma.

262 bortezomib-based regimens in transplantation-ineligible patients with myeloma.

263 ments in PROs, including pain, in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myelom

264 ne has been a standard of care in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myelom

265 ity and acceptable tolerability in cisplatin-ineligible patients with urothelial cancer, most of whom

266 Of 527 ineligible patients, 386 had full DST, of which 246 were

267 After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned

268 access to the aorta allows TAVR in otherwise ineligible patients, and may offer a new access strategy

269 ased on the high percentage of enrolled, but ineligible patients, it is clear that adherence to stric

270 Among OHT-ineligible patients, mean life expectancy with inotrope-

271 In cisplatin-ineligible patients, radical cystectomy alone is recomme

272 For transplant-ineligible patients, there was no difference in VTEs bet

273 For transplant-ineligible patients, those randomly assigned to attenuat

274 plus anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) in cisplatin-ineligible patients, with all tumors identified as havin

275 or metastatic urothelial cancer in cisplatin-ineligible patients.

276 ignificantly improves life expectancy in OHT-ineligible patients.

277 planned number of patients and included 7.7% ineligible patients.

278 Sixteen patients were ineligible, resulting in 328 evaluable patients, 159 in

279 n the 12-week programme had been found to be ineligible shortly after randomisation and were excluded

280 Five participants were deemed ineligible shortly after randomization and were disconti

281 nd one who received supportive therapy) were ineligible, so were not included in the intention-to-tre

282 laborated with another reviewer on excluding ineligible studies.

283 The rate was higher in CREST ineligible than in CREST eligible patients (11.4% versus

284 Two were ineligible, therefore results are presented for 24 eligi

285 s available for analysis; four patients were ineligible (three from the SRS group and one from the ob

286 ause they were subsequently discovered to be ineligible; thus, a total of 176 patients were analysed

287 A total of 737 transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple

288 We measured (1) conversion rates from BCT-ineligible to BCT-eligible, (2) surgical choices in BCT

289 prospectively a 42% conversion rate from BCT-ineligible to BCT-eligible, resulting in a 14% absolute

290 limitations that result from patients being ineligible to drive.

291 ses, and correlates of mortality in patients ineligible to participate in transcatheter aortic valve

292 who were age >/=65 years or transplantation-ineligible to receive induction with melphalan-prednison

293 urativa failing adalimumab therapy, or those ineligible to receive it, remain a population with an un

294 particularly beneficial for patients who are ineligible to receive or cannot tolerate anti-PDL1 thera

295 Eighteen of 189 recruited patients were ineligible to take part in the study.

296 s in patients with urothelial cancer who are ineligible ("unfit") for cisplatin chemotherapy.

297 ith locally advanced or metastatic cisplatin-ineligible urothelial carcinoma (UC).

298 ed for toxicity; 2 patients discovered to be ineligible were excluded from response assessment.

299 Thirteen patients (one ineligible) were enrolled in phase I of the study.

300 eclined vaccination, and 4 patients who were ineligible, were analyzed.