ライフサイエンスコーパス: intensive therapy

1 d therapy) with 80 mg of atorvastatin daily (intensive therapy).

2 of their options for a fulfilling life after intensive therapy.

3 y the degree of weight gain while undergoing intensive therapy.

4 ide because of high mortality rates and cost-intensive therapy.

5 n maintain this high survival rate with less intensive therapy.

6 HIES patients requires strict monitoring and intensive therapy.

7 be due, in part, to increased intolerance of intensive therapy.

8 children and has a dismal prognosis despite intensive therapy.

9 ;22), or a t(1;19), and most received highly intensive therapy.

10 marrow on day 7) have a poor outcome despite intensive therapy.

11 that these patients are candidates for less intensive therapy.

12 ransform outcomes in patients unsuitable for intensive therapy.

13 follow-ups and may indicate a more prolonged intensive therapy.

14 metastatic disease and often relapse despite intensive therapy.

15 clear, particularly in the context of modern intensive therapy.

16 ease biology and their inability to tolerate intensive therapy.

17 in the setting of combined modality or more intensive therapy.

18 the development of reliable organ-protective intensive therapy.

19 1540 patients in three prospective trials of intensive therapy.

20 myeloid leukemia (AML) necessitate maximally intensive therapy.

21 onship with motor deficits across 28 days of intensive therapy.

22 ecent studies have shown improved outcome on intensive therapy.

23 nce of early and sustained implementation of intensive therapy.

24 g-term survival is approximately 40% despite intensive therapy.

25 for these patients who cannot tolerate more intensive therapy.

26 riers, who had increased mortality risk from intensive therapy.

27 th lower DFS because these patients received intensive therapy.

28 d (OS of 100% at 6-year follow-up) with less-intensive therapy.

29 esigned to examine thalidomide combined with intensive therapy.

30 at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy.

31 60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy.

32 eks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy.

33 hypoglycemic clamp studies before and after intensive therapy.

34 RCs with BRD4-NUT are highly lethal, despite intensive therapies.

35 ed with significant myelosuppression in dose-intensive therapies.

36 k factor despite treatment with contemporary intensive therapies.

37 Higher mortality risks were seen after less-intensive therapies.

38 with 48% and 38% in those who received less-intensive therapies.

39 and adults in persistence of the benefits of intensive therapy 10 years after completion of the Diabe

40 owever, for the 17 patients who received non-intensive therapy, 16 (94%) of M1 clones had a response

41 tients, low-education patients received less intensive therapy (30% v 48%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.65;

42 act extraction (adjusted risk reduction with intensive therapy, 48%; 95% CI, 23 to 65; P=0.002); 29 p

43 n patients who received R-CHOP compared with intensive therapy (56% v 88%; P = .002).

44 ally significant reductions in admissions to intensive therapy (6.35% [95% CI, 0.42%-12.28%]), and re

45 performed in 63 of 711 patients assigned to intensive therapy (8.9%) and 189 ocular operations in 98

46 Despite intensive therapy, 80% of affected children die, often w

47 trial with sequential randomization to more intensive therapy achieved greater than 80% power and un

48 Complications Trial (DCCT) demonstrated that intensive therapy aimed at improved glucose control mark

49 CT) demonstrated that a mean of 6.5 years of intensive therapy aimed at near-normal glucose levels re

50 ices could lead to earlier implementation of intensive therapies and improved clinical outcomes.

51 23 to 65; P=0.002); 29 patients who received intensive therapy and 50 who received conventional thera

52 Forty-two patients who received intensive therapy and 61 who received conventional thera

53 L, particularly SR patients who require more intensive therapy and are now treated on HR COG ALL prot

54 alpha-tocopherol in patients undergoing dose-intensive therapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplant

55 ere used to quantify the association between intensive therapy and incident CVD for the 2 different H

56 tis the demyelinating episodes required more intensive therapy and resulted in more residual deficits

57 atients elected standard therapy, 21 elected intensive therapy, and 53 patients declined therapy.

58 tment initiation, lack of BMI increase after intensive therapy, and severe stunting are associated wi

59 sment of relevant geriatric metrics prior to intensive therapy, and work is ongoing to develop comple

60 patients with good HIV control can withstand intensive therapies appropriate to the lymphoma, includi

61 Intensive therapies are often medically indicated for ol

62 effects to the overall clinical efficacy of intensive therapy are presently unclear.

63 e that occur with excessive weight gain with intensive therapy are similar to those seen in the insul

64 We evaluated the effect of intensive therapy as compared with conventional therapy

65 attempting to cure metastatic patients with intensive therapy as facilitated by peripheral stem cell

66 hough selected older adults can benefit from intensive therapies, as a group they experience increase

67 of complications who might benefit from more intensive therapies at presentation.

68 arction 22 (PROVE IT-TIMI 22) study compared intensive therapy (atorvastatin, 80 mg) and moderate the

69 s to prevent marrow relapse by administering intensive therapy before delayed craniospinal radiation.

70 cts for long-term survival are poor and that intensive therapy cannot be tolerated and so is not just

71 significantly for patients in the R-CHOP or intensive therapy cohorts when analyzed by receipt of au

72 iovascular events for participants receiving intensive therapy compared with moderate-dose therapy.

73 oth arms, likely because of decreases in CNS-intensive therapy compared with previous approaches and

74 hich are not patient-centred, even when less intensive therapies confer survival benefits nearly iden

75 Intensive therapy conferred no survival advantage over s

76 Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced me

77 Intensive therapy during the DCCT resulted in decreased

78 ficantly less in the group that had received intensive therapy during the DCCT than in the group that

79 onventional therapy (dietary restriction) or intensive therapy (either sulfonylurea or insulin or, in

80 re acute pancreatic might benefit from early intensive therapy, enteral nutrition and timely transfer

81 rst and fourth quartiles of weight gain with intensive therapy except for a higher hemoglobin A1c in

82 The benefits of former intensive therapy extend to measures of CAN up to 14 yea

83 us 5-FU (500 mg/m2 per day) for 4 months; 2) intensive therapy: external beam radiation therapy to th

84 um to reduce mucositis in patients receiving intensive therapy for hematologic cancers.

85 led 1441 participants to address the role of intensive therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus on the on

86 Intensive therapy for type 1 diabetes results in greater

87 ed hemoglobin (Hb A1c) concentrations during intensive therapy for type 1 diabetes.

88 In 90 patients treated with dose-intensive therapy from diagnosis at MSKCC, the use of MI

89 cognize patients who would benefit from more intensive therapy from the perspective of thrombosis, an

90 , with lower all-cause mortality risk in the intensive therapy group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67 [95% C

91 ut with a greater increase of sTNF-R1 in the intensive therapy group (P=0.002).

92 The intensive therapy group had no survival advantage when c

93 by EDIC Study year 10) vs. 31 controls (DCCT intensive therapy group subjects without complication pr

94 by lower cumulative glycemic exposure in the intensive therapy group, and, on average, the developmen

95 f the glycated hemoglobin curves between the intensive-therapy group (892 participants) and the stand

96 andard-therapy group and 235 patients in the intensive-therapy group (hazard ratio in the intensive-t

97 ce in glycated hemoglobin levels between the intensive-therapy group and the standard-therapy group a

98 Over a median follow-up of 9.8 years, the intensive-therapy group had a significantly lower risk o

99 scular events or death were not lower in the intensive-therapy group than in the standard-therapy gro

100 rates of minimal response were lower in the intensive-therapy group than in the standard-therapy gro

101 d progression-free survival (P<0.001) in the intensive-therapy group than in the standard-therapy gro

102 ates of complete response were higher in the intensive-therapy group than in the standard-therapy gro

103 The goal in the intensive-therapy group was an absolute reduction of 1.5

104 intensive-therapy group (hazard ratio in the intensive-therapy group, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [

105 l mortality was evident (hazard ratio in the intensive-therapy group, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.25; P=0

106 n the standard-therapy group and 6.9% in the intensive-therapy group.

107 the standard-therapy group and 24.1% in the intensive-therapy group.

108 The costs of surgery were 32% lower in the intensive-therapy group.

109 Patients were eligible for 3F8/GM-CSF if intensive therapy had not eradicated potentially lethal

110 Patients who had more intensive therapy had significantly (P<0.01) better cont

111 cated hemoglobin to near-normal levels using intensive therapy have failed to prevent CVD and have ev

112 subgroup analyses among subjects undergoing intensive therapy, hsCRP levels increased among those wh

113 Intensive therapy (IIP or MDI) for 1 year.

114 rvival and QOL benefits (except LOH) of less-intensive therapies in patients with AML, including thos

115 The benefit of intensive therapy in carriers was significant as early a

116 Intensive therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes melli

117 Intensive therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes was a

118 We defined SCAP as receipt of intensive therapy in the intensive care unit.

119 reased cardiovascular mortality in trials of intensive therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

120 ing subsequent hypoglycemia before and after intensive therapy in type 2 diabetic patients and in non

121 ents with ALL benefitted from receiving more intensive therapy in UKALL2003.

122 In refractory or unresponsive TTP, more intensive therapies including twice-daily plasma exchang

123 Hand-Arm Bimanual Intensive Therapy Including Lower Extremities (HABIT-ILE

124 re designed to test the hypothesis that more intensive therapy, including dose intensification of che

125 Acquired resistance to targeted, non-intensive therapies is common in myeloid malignancies.

126 Multi-targeted intensive therapy is imperative; however, unfortunately

127 However, when dose-intensive therapy is initiated at diagnosis, the reliabl

128 and high clinical heterogeneity with current intensive therapies, it is crucial to unravel the molecu

129 Despite intensive therapy, many patients die of the disease, and

130 e hypothesis that increased weight gain with intensive therapy might be explained, in part, by geneti

131 rticipants were randomly assigned to receive intensive therapy (n = 711) aimed at achieving glycemia

132 ngs appear to corroborate early reports that intensive therapy of HIV-Burkitt lymphoma is feasible an

133 have shown that early diagnosis and timely, intensive therapy of rheumatoid arthritis can modify dis

134 tment outcome for such patients treated with intensive therapy on consecutive Children's Cancer Group

135 These data demonstrate that the effect of intensive therapy on inflammation is complex and, to the

136 The present study examined the effect of intensive therapy on levels of several markers of inflam

137 The effects of intensive therapy on measures of cardiac function and st

138 ontinued to show persistent benefit of prior intensive therapy on neuropathy, retinopathy, and nephro

139 cohort, reported persistent benefit of prior intensive therapy on retinopathy and nephropathy in type

140 We examined the effect of intensive therapy on the change in levels of the inflamm

141 t selection is needed to focus this resource-intensive therapy on those patients likely to benefit.

142 etter assess the value of less-intensive and intensive therapies or their combination.

143 ch patients with COVID-19 might require more intensive therapy or monitoring.

144 ven secondary measures at study end favoured intensive therapy (p<0.05).

145 Among intensive therapy patients (n = 1,567), antecedent myelo

146 Limited to intensive therapy patients, we compared chance of comple

147 The benefit of intensive therapy progressively declined as baseline LDL

148 erging analyses from patients receiving less-intensive therapies prompted a proposal for an ELN genet

149 Less-intensive therapy recipients had shorter length of hospi

150 Intensive therapy reduced (P < 0.05) ANS and metabolic c

151 pulation of hypertension trial participants, intensive therapy reduced risk of CVD or all-cause morta

152 Prior DCCT intensive therapy reduced the risks of incident CAN by 3

153 They show that the less-intensive therapy reduces early mortality without impair

154 tment for baseline levels and other factors, intensive therapy remained associated with a significant

155 ailored according to response, with the most intensive therapies reserved for patients predicted to h

156 uces major vascular events, but whether more intensive therapy safely produces extra benefits is unce

157 Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the increase

158 Dose-intensive therapy should currently be considered as the

159 nce of minimal residual disease (MRD) during intensive therapy still have a poor prognosis.

160 With intensive therapy, subjects with a family history of typ

161 he stability of the latent reservoir despite intensive therapy suggests that new strategies are neede

162 ears, six male/six female) across 28 days of intensive therapy targeting arm motor deficits.

163 OIT is an intensive therapy that requires commitment from patients

164 For the 20 patients who received intensive therapy, there was no difference between the p

165 ery high-risk patients require novel or more intensive therapy to improve outcome.

166 dy tested the hypothesis that 1) 6 months of intensive therapy to lower A1C <7.0% would blunt autonom

167 those with the E2A-PBX1 fusion require more intensive therapy to obtain a good outcome.

168 ticularly in high-risk patients in whom more intensive therapy to prevent relapse is warranted.

169 roup, our findings do not support the use of intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabe

170 ed and relapsed patients, whether treated by intensive therapy (total therapy II) or novel agents (bo

171 Data for intensive therapy unit and hospital length of stay were

172 ollected from patients admitted to the liver intensive therapy unit at King's College Hospital in Lon

173 ove mortality, infectious complications, and intensive therapy unit length of stay in comparison with

174 With respect to intensive therapy unit length of stay, no differences we

175 Duration of liver intensive therapy unit stay (p = 0.175), survival (p = 0

176 t the MELD was significantly associated with intensive therapy unit stay but not eventual outcome; th

177 ritically ill adult patients admitted to the intensive therapy unit, given in addition to their routi

178 nd acute neurological illness managed in the intensive therapy unit.

179 aemopoietic-cell transplantation (HCT) is an intensive therapy used to treat high-risk haematological

180 Compared with standard therapy, intensive therapy was associated with a lower risk of in

181 After adjustment for DCCT baseline factors, intensive therapy was associated with a reduction in the

182 Conversely, intensive therapy was associated with an increased risk

183 tin therapy induced EAT regression, although intensive therapy was more effective than moderate-inten

184 Intensive therapy was stopped before study end because o

185 end of the DCCT, after a mean of 6.5 years, intensive therapy was taught and recommended to all part

186 Less-intensive therapies were associated with higher risks of

187 the retrospective cohort, recipients of less-intensive therapies were older and had more comorbiditie

188 The beneficial effects of intensive therapy were fully attenuated after adjustment

189 >= 18 years old and considered eligible for intensive therapy were randomly assigned up front for in

190 utations predominated in mice receiving less intensive therapy, whereas high-dose treatment selected

191 M-1 decreased among participants assigned to intensive therapy, whereas they did not change among tho

192 with relapsed multiple myeloma eligible for intensive therapy, which might help to guide clinical de

193 hose patients whose prognosis justifies more intensive therapy, while predictive profiles may soon be

194 d macular degeneration (nAMD) often requires intensive therapy with anti-VEGF injections.

195 Following a two-year intensive therapy with as-needed regimen, BCVA was maint

196 increased risk was significantly reduced by intensive therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg beyond that ac

197 These results indicate that intensive therapy with insulin, which establishes normog

198 al nervous system complications responded to intensive therapy with intravenous (IV) pulse methylpred

199 Recent clinical trials suggest that intensive therapy with statins may provide incremental b

200 capable of surviving within the body despite intensive therapy with the appropriate antimicrobial dru

201 ally younger people could be prescribed more intensive therapies, with potential for greater benefit,

202 injections, orthopedic surgery, or specific intensive therapy within 6 months before and until the e