ライフサイエンスコーパス: neutropenic fever

1 16 patients [50%], with six [19%] developing neutropenic fever).

2 There was only 1 episode of neutropenic fever.

3 ncluded one grade 4 diarrhea and one grade 4 neutropenic fever.

4 nd 3% of patients receiving TAP experiencing neutropenic fever.

5 ut was manageable with only a single case of neutropenic fever.

6 amycin-piperacillin for empirical therapy of neutropenic fever.

7 nsisting of thrombocytopenia associated with neutropenic fever.

8 owever, it did not increase the incidence of neutropenic fever.

9 No patient required hospitalization for neutropenic fever.

10 Only one patient was hospitalized for neutropenic fever.

11 ms commonly used in the empiric treatment of neutropenic fever.

12 dose-limiting toxic effects of mucositis and neutropenic fever.

13 omplicated by hospitalization, primarily for neutropenic fever.

14 3, n = 20 [33%]; grade 4, n = 2 [3%]) but no neutropenic fever.

15 g/m2, at which level two of six patients had neutropenic fever.

16 was tolerable, with the major toxicity being neutropenic fever.

17 (51%) required dose reductions, usually for neutropenic fever.

18 vely), and one patient in each group died of neutropenic fevers.

19 Acute toxicities during TPE included neutropenic fever (10%) and during XPE, grade 3 or 4 ora

20 de >/=3 adverse events were pneumonia (20%), neutropenic fever (11%), and diarrhea (6%).

21 related to neutropenia present at baseline: neutropenic fever (13 of 25 subjects) and septic death (

22 3.3% v 0.0%; P = .004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P < .001), hospitalizat

23 (3.3% v 0.0%; P =.004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P <.001), hospitalizati

24 e 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic

25 for toxicity, which included 11 patients for neutropenic fever (18%).

26 events included fatigue (5%), vomiting (2%), neutropenic fever (2%), and neutropenia (2%).

27 ), thrombocytopenia (12%), anemia (12%), and neutropenic fever (2%).

28 significant (severe) adverse events included neutropenic fever (24% of patients), asthenia (22%), inf

29 bocytopenia: grade 3, 26%; grade 4, 3%), but neutropenic fever (6%) and bleeding events (0%) were rar

30 s, moderate to severe neutropenia (38%), and neutropenic fever (6%).

31 s was observed after 4%, infection after 3%, neutropenic fever after 6%, neutrophils less than 100/mi

32 microg/kg did not reduce the probability of neutropenic fever after high-dose paclitaxel.

33 The incidence of neutropenic fever after the first cycle of paclitaxel 25

34 nd day 8 of chemotherapy, respectively, with neutropenic fever and abdominal pain; the third patient

35 Filgrastim largely obviates neutropenic fever and allows for the single-agent dose-i

36 , one from necrotic bowel and the other from neutropenic fever and colitis.

37 es, and colonic mucus link the microbiome to neutropenic fever and may guide future microbiome-based

38 Four patients experienced neutropenic fever and one had mild bronchospasm.

39 well tolerated with anticipated cytopenias, neutropenic fever, and disease-related fever, diarrhea,

40 herapy was well tolerated, with transfusion, neutropenic fever, and infection remaining the most freq

41 Fewer episodes of infection, neutropenic fever, and post-infusion hospitalization wer

42 One had non-neutropenic fever, another had neutropenic fever, and the third was afebrile and non-ne

43 n of prophylactic antibiotics, management of neutropenic fevers, and transfusion support.

44 One had non-neutropenic fever, another had neutropenic fever, and th

45 mucositis of varying degrees, diarrhea, and neutropenic fever, but all patients recovered.

46 s among treatment groups in the incidence of neutropenic fever, days of hospitalization, or number of

47 n C were admitted to the hospital because of neutropenic fever for a median duration of 4 days (range

48 ohort, these infections were associated with neutropenic fever from an enteric source, and most isola

49 Only four of 121 patients (3.3%) developed neutropenic fever (grade 4 neutropenia with > or = grade

50 ogic or electrolyte abnormalities, including neutropenic fever in 18%.

51 ppression was the major adverse effect, with neutropenic fever in 28 (23%) of 124 courses of therapy.

52 hairy cell leukemia (HCL) is complicated by neutropenic fever in 42% of patients despite documented

53 ia or arthralgia in 30%, neutropenia in 53%, neutropenic fever in 8%, and thrombocytopenia in 42% of

54 ning with risk-stratified management for non-neutropenic fever in pediatric patients with cancer coul

55 tely stratify risk of BSI in episodes of non-neutropenic fever in pediatric patients with cancer.

56 itiation of antibiotics in all patients with neutropenic fever independent of the underlying cause an

57 ient (4%) died from sepsis in the context of neutropenic fever, infection, and haemorrhage in the 5-d

58 adverse events that was most pronounced for neutropenic fever/infections and gastrointestinal events

59 rade 3 hypersensitivity reaction (n = 1) and neutropenic fever (n = 1), both at 10 mg/kg.

60 common grade 3-4 adverse events overall were neutropenic fever (n=27) and pneumonia (n=18).

61 had serious adverse events, most frequently neutropenic fever (n=63, 38%), followed by pneumonia (n=

62 factors (GCSF) for patients at low risk for neutropenic fever, nab-paclitaxel for cancers with no ev

63 -associated thrombosis, leukemic meningitis, neutropenic fever, neutropenic enterocolitis, and transf

64 Neutropenic fever (NF) is a common complication of chemo

65 Neutropenic fever (NF) occurs in >70% of hematopoietic c

66 However, neither neutropenic fever nor episodes of bleeding were major oc

67 Major infections or neutropenic fever occurred in 13% of patients.

68 ts) was transient grades 3 to 4 neutropenia; neutropenic fever occurred in 27%.

69 There was no neutropenic fever or neutropenic sepsis.

70 ays, and 9 (38%) patients did not experience neutropenic fevers or require broad-spectrum antibiotics

71 es were observed in 10% of patients, with no neutropenic fevers or treatment-related death.

72 with bleeding, grade 3 or 4 renal toxicity, neutropenic fever, or mucositis) was observed in 9.3% of

73 Grade 3 or 4 neutropenic fevers (P=0.01), nausea and vomiting (P<0.00

74 Neutropenic fever requiring hospitalization occurred in

75 on therapy, whereas myalgia, arthralgia, and neutropenic fever/sepsis were more common with single-ag

76 nia (P <.0001) leading to significantly less neutropenic fever/sepsis.

77 he most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenic fever (seven patients [25%] in the 5-day gro

78 to the intestinal barrier and development of neutropenic fever/Sirsa/Sepsis.

79 Four patients had neutropenic fever that required hospitalization, and sev

80 lantation, 13 patients were hospitalized for neutropenic fever, thrombocytopenia, or both.

81 c: grade 3/4 neutropenia, four patients (one neutropenic fever); two patients had grade 3 thrombocyto

82 The incidence of neutropenic fevers was less than 5% in both arms.

83 However, the incidence of neutropenic fevers was similar between the two groups (8

84 e 3 or 4 mucositis, grade 4 neutropenia, and neutropenic fever were less frequent during treatment wi

85 Neutropenic fevers were rare and no intracranial hemorrh

86 e 3 type 2 diabetes mellitus, mucositis, and neutropenic fever, were seen at the 2.2 mg/kg dose; ther

87 The most common toxicity was neutropenic fever, which occurred in 39% of patients.

88 tment breaks were mediport complications and neutropenic fever, which occurred mostly at that dose le

89 All had neutropenic fever with symptoms of mucositis and/or ente

90 One patient developed neutropenic fever without bacteriologic documentation an