ライフサイエンスコーパス: oral antibiotic

1 70 paired cases (differing only in receiving oral antibiotics).

2 tool culture, and the patient improved on an oral antibiotic.

3 47% (n = 51) received an extended course of oral antibiotics.

4 It was successfully treated with oral antibiotics.

5 main asymptomatic when they are treated with oral antibiotics.

6 operative normothermia, glucose control, and oral antibiotics.

7 and the addition of extended treatment with oral antibiotics.

8 s, each of whom received repeated courses of oral antibiotics.

9 whereas 36.4% received a mechanical prep and oral antibiotics.

10 ing only in whether or not they had received oral antibiotics.

11 en whose bacterial vaginosis is treated with oral antibiotics.

12 se exacerbations are frequently treated with oral antibiotics.

13 iotics compared with intravenous followed by oral antibiotics.

14 e (11.5%), were the most commonly prescribed oral antibiotics.

15 course of intravenous antibiotics, and then oral antibiotics.

16 risk of repeat TT insertions and subsequent oral antibiotics.

17 naging bone and joint infections (BJIs) with oral antibiotics.

18 cribing junior adrenaline auto-injectors and oral antibiotics.

19 ected SSIs not necessitating readmission but oral antibiotics.

20 , which were previously mainly restricted to oral antibiotics.

21 atients treated with intravenous followed by oral antibiotics.

22 available pharmacokinetic and MIC data for 2 oral antibiotics.

23 anaging bone and joint infections (BJI) with oral antibiotics.

24 n a cohort of commonly prescribed off-patent oral antibiotics.

25 oms, completion of 10 days of treatment with oral antibiotics.

26 revalence of resistance to readily available oral antibiotics.

27 patients received long-term suppression with oral antibiotics (31 of 74 [42%] ceftriaxone vs 25 of 50

28 with mechanical (95% vs 71%, P < 0.001) and oral antibiotic (94% vs 27%, P < 0.001) bowel preparatio

29 considered, there is moderate evidence that oral antibiotic administration is noninferior to IV.

30 testinal microbiota was depleted by means of oral antibiotic administration.

31 Patients who received oral antibiotics after an incomplete IV antibiotic cours

32 ring patients who were discharged on partial oral antibiotics after receiving at least 10 days of IV

33 sm susceptible to an acceptably bioavailable oral antibiotic agent.

34 ) vs appropriate (ie, guideline-recommended) oral antibiotic agents dispensed from an outpatient phar

35 There is a need for oral antibiotic agents that are effective against multid

36 ed on limited evidence from trials comparing oral antibiotic agents with topical antibiotics.

37 nts' views on treatment with intravenous and oral antibiotics, aiming to provide insights that could

38 g 1-year follow-up, and to determine whether oral antibiotics alone were noninferior to intravenous a

39 impaired GFR, suppressing gut microbes with oral antibiotics also increased GFR.

40 ure through processed food, formula milk and oral antibiotic and drug use.

41 patient and emergency department encounters, oral antibiotic and oral contraceptive prescriptions, po

42 95% CI, 65.8% to ) for patients treated with oral antibiotics and 73.8% (1-sided 95% CI, 69.5% to ) f

43 ultations on improving the identification of oral antibiotics and discuss next steps towards a new id

44 tic-glucocorticoid eardrops were superior to oral antibiotics and initial observation for all outcome

45 ocorticoid eardrops were more effective than oral antibiotics and initial observation in children wit

46 Treatment with long-term, non-Pseudomonas oral antibiotics and integration of CF infants with olde

47 available agents for acne treatment, such as oral antibiotics and isotretinoin (Accutane), have limit

48 and 17 events in 804 patients (2.11%) in the oral antibiotics and IV (+/- oral) antibiotics groups, r

49 Use of broad-spectrum oral antibiotics and probably poor infection control pra

50 the association between different classes of oral antibiotics and serious cADRs, using macrolides as

51 wpoint, we discuss how the identification of oral antibiotics and their distinction from other common

52 The mice received oral antibiotics and were monitored for depigmentation.

53 acquiring increasing resistance to available oral antibiotics, and current screening and treatment ap

54 le systematic reviews evaluated lifitegrast, oral antibiotics, and moisture chamber devices.

55 reviews are needed to evaluate lifitegrast, oral antibiotics, and moisture chamber devices.

56 omposed of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, and perioperative intravenous antibiot

57 Dentists prescribe a large portion of all oral antibiotics, and these are associated with a risk o

58 ling study, incorporation of OPAT or partial oral antibiotic approaches along with addiction care ser

59 Commonly prescribed oral antibiotics are associated with an increased risk o

60 However, oral antibiotics are available that achieve adequate lev

61 nted into clinical practice when patients on oral antibiotics are followed up by an established OPAT

62 Topical and oral antibiotics are routinely used to treat acne.

63 Although oral antibiotics are used commonly in the management of

64 children) with osteomyelitis, 1005 received oral antibiotics at discharge, whereas 1055 received PIC

65 The limited oral antibiotics available and the growing resistance to

66 ing the nose or skin had little success, and oral antibiotic-based decolonisation is ill advised beca

67 ients (7.0%), and 190 women (27.7%) received oral antibiotics because of clinically suspected SSI.

68 ed 66 years or older who received at least 1 oral antibiotic between 2002 and 2022 in Ontario, Canada

69 espiratory tract infection and prescribed an oral antibiotic between January 2015 and April 2016 in a

70 The use of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (ABP) has been practic

71 The role of mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation (MOABP) in preventing

72 A could usually be treated successfully with oral antibiotics but sometimes required intravenous anti

73 demonstrate equivalent efficacy to high-dose oral antibiotics but with significantly less perturbatio

74 r the extremely aggressive and timely use of oral antibiotics by all asymptomatics in the exposure re

75 The prevalence of transition from IV to oral antibiotics by day 7, median day of transition, sou

76 eceiving IV antibiotics were transitioned to oral antibiotics by day 7.

77 A) and initiation of topical treatments and oral antibiotics by primary care clinicians (algorithm B

78 Oral antibiotics can be used after DAIR for an extended

79 Treating mdr1a-/- mice with oral antibiotics can both prevent the development of dis

80 Preoperative oral antibiotics can therefore be considered without MBP

81 ation in CF was tested by treating mice with oral antibiotics (ciprofloxacin and metronidazole) for 3

82 h more severe inflammatory acne usually need oral antibiotics combined with topical benzoyl peroxide

83 to quantify the risk of ADRs associated with oral antibiotics commonly prescribed by dentists.

84 orm (SNAP) trial will assess early switch to oral antibiotics compared with continued IV treatment in

85 rate noninferiority for treatment success of oral antibiotics compared with intravenous followed by o

86 sized that mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (compared with without) was associated

87 Therefore, we aimed to review 2015 levels of oral antibiotic consumption by young children globally.

88 17 of 41 patients had 24 fewer oral antibiotic courses when on azithromycin than when t

89 d a secondary benefit of reducing subsequent oral antibiotic courses; however, it was not associated

90 ut commensal bacteria in IL-6(+/+) mice with oral antibiotics decreased portal blood endotoxin levels

91 s, making therapy of urinary infections with oral antibiotics difficult.

92 es for therapeutic switch from parenteral to oral antibiotics, discharge planning, and long-term foll

93 Antibiotic receipt, defined as an oral antibiotic dispensed from a pharmacy on the day of

94 Oral antibiotic efficacy can be unreliable; however, sel

95 In males, oral antibiotics elevated GFR on week 2.

96 ed a uniform 2-week postoperative regimen of oral antibiotics, fluticasone nasal spray, and saline ri

97 e is growing interest in whether a switch to oral antibiotics following an initial period of IV thera

98 Use of oral antibiotics following discharge may decrease organ

99 ged from hospital on post-operative day 3 on oral antibiotics for 7 days.

100 e two trials, treatment with intravenous and oral antibiotics for 90 days did not improve symptoms mo

101 History An 11-year-old boy taking oral antibiotics for Fusobacterium meningitis diagnosed

102 HistoryAn 11-year-old boy taking oral antibiotics for Fusobacterium meningitis diagnosed

103 ccelerate wound healing and culture-directed oral antibiotics for localized osteomyelitis.

104 Overall, most participants preferred oral antibiotics for their convenience, which enabled im

105 h existing studies comparing intravenous and oral antibiotics for this purpose are limited.

106 two or more weeks of ceftazidime followed by oral antibiotics for three to six months.

107 who had received sequential intravenous then oral antibiotics for treatment of Staphylococcus aureus

108 Spironolactone is a useful alternative to oral antibiotics for women with acne.

109 We identified oral antibiotic formulations appropriate for use in youn

110 hould be considered eligible for combination oral antibiotics from the outset.

111 al bowel preparation given nor nonabsorbable oral antibiotic given).

112 Here we report that oral antibiotics given during active disease removed har

113 ia, postoperative day 1 glucose control, and oral antibiotics given when bowel prep used (SCIP-1 was

114 (2.11%) in the oral antibiotics and IV (+/- oral) antibiotics groups, respectively.

115 Patients transitioned to oral antibiotics had an average length of stay that was

116 tigated whether breast cancer patients using oral antibiotics had increased breast cancer-specific mo

117 bers of injectable antibiotics combined with oral antibiotics had similar efficacy and safety to the

118 Extending therapy with oral antibiotics had superior infection-free survival fo

119 sure was an inappropriate versus appropriate oral antibiotic (ie, non-guideline-recommended vs guidel

120 e results reveal that high combined doses of oral antibiotics impair oligodendrocyte progenitor cell

121 and kidney fibrosis; this was suppressed by oral antibiotics in both sexes.

122 w studies that have assessed the efficacy of oral antibiotics in clinically meaningful ways in the ma

123 ification and recognition of the efficacy of oral antibiotics in low-risk patients.

124 gested that a transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics in selected patients may be reasonable,

125 ibe a unique disease-associated tolerance to oral antibiotics in superspreaders that facilitates cont

126 tion experience and perceive intravenous and oral antibiotics in terms of quality of life and clinica

127 studied the relationship between the use of oral antibiotics in the first year of life and asthma, a

128 y to rescue skin associated DSS colitis with oral antibiotics, in germ-free mice, and fecal microbiom

129 In females on an adenine diet, oral antibiotics increased GFR versus adenine alone on w

130 ger than 20 years with at least 1 outpatient oral antibiotic, intramuscular ceftriaxone, or penicilli

131 zing the transition from intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotics is a critical step in improving patient

132 hanical bowel preparation with nonabsorbable oral antibiotics is associated with a decreased rate of

133 in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with oral antibiotics is complicated by increasing resistance

134 e of safety and pharmacokinetics data on new oral antibiotics is crucial.

135 gative bloodstream infections (GN-BSIs) with oral antibiotics is highly variable.

136 ) with prolonged IV antibiotics (rather than oral antibiotics) is based on historical observational r

137 failure rates between an extended course of oral antibiotics less or more than 12 months (P = .23).

138 Meanwhile, oral antibiotics may also exacerbate antimicrobial resis

139 existing studies on the topic indicate that oral antibiotics may be an effective treatment for OSD t

140 Oral antibiotics may be rapidly substituted for intraven

141 Oral antibiotics may reduce the incidence of SSI.

142 Transition to oral antibiotics may represent an alternative treatment

143 bscess drainage; 71/74 (95.9%) randomized to oral antibiotics met the primary endpoint compared with

144 e absence of IRF4 or after administration of oral antibiotics, MHC II(+)CD226(-)CD11c(-) monocyte-der

145 receive intravenous antibiotics followed by oral antibiotics (n = 288) received intravenous ertapene

146 ontrol), mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), oral antibiotics (OA), or both MBP and OA.

147 ion, postprocedural fever that resolved with oral antibiotics, occurred (1%; 95% CI: 0%, 6%).

148 was associated with lower odds of subsequent oral antibiotics (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.58-0.

149 erial/viral or other); (4) the proportion of oral antibiotics of inappropriate duration; and (5) the

150 containing vancomycin, teicoplanin, and six oral antibiotics of potential use in periodontal therapy

151 onversely, disruption of the microbiota with oral antibiotics often precedes the emergence of several

152 course of IV antibiotics and were prescribed oral antibiotics on AMA discharge.

153 n this study, we investigated the effects of oral antibiotics on morphine reward and prefrontal corti

154 recommend switching from intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotics once patients are clinically stable.

155 Whether a shift from intravenous to oral antibiotics once the patient is in stable condition

156 nt need for more efficacious, tolerated, and oral antibiotics optimized towards the treatment of NTM-

157 athogen resistance and safety concerns limit oral antibiotic options for the treatment of acute bacte

158 Receipt of 5 or more days of oral antibiotics or 1 injectable antibiotic in the month

159 In NHE3(-/-) mice, broad-spectrum oral antibiotics or anti-asialo GM1 antibodies reduce th

160 Modulation of intestinal microbiota by oral antibiotics or germ-free condition can prevent arth

161 (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75-0.81) and subsequent oral antibiotics (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.62-0.65).

162 CI, 0.65-2.15; P = .58) and prescription of oral antibiotics (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51-1.02; P = .07).

163 when gut microbiota were either suppressed (oral antibiotics) or absent (germ-free).

164 hanical bowel preparation with nonabsorbable oral antibiotics) or no bowel preparation (neither mecha

165 mations were examined at baseline, following oral antibiotics, or following chronic (>=2 months) l-ca

166 chemical parameters and symptoms of PSC with oral antibiotics, ostensibly through manipulation of the

167 re or death than patients discharged without oral antibiotics (P < .001).

168 ardrops versus 5 days for those treated with oral antibiotics (P<0.001) and 12 days for those who wer

169 Dermatologists prescribe more oral antibiotics per clinician than clinicians in any ot

170 ation they received [combined mechanical and oral antibiotic preparation (OAP), mechanical preparatio

171 Oral antibiotic prescription rates decreased 5%, from 87

172 , defined as the excess percentage change in oral antibiotic prescription rates in Knox County betwee

173 We estimated annual oral antibiotic prescription rates using national prescr

174 e index ED visit, 14 725 (72.6%) received an oral antibiotic prescription, and 9913 (48.9%) received

175 omes were repeat TT insertion and subsequent oral antibiotic prescriptions after TT insertions.

176 nfidence intervals of ambulatory visits with oral antibiotic prescriptions by age, region, and diagno

177 Oral antibiotic prescriptions dispensed during 2011 were

178 tudy was to describe trends in US outpatient oral antibiotic prescriptions from 2011-2016.

179 Preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis is a potential infection con

180 Preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis prior to colorectal surgery

181 On 1 January 2013, oral antibiotic prophylaxis with tobramycin and colistin

182 tibiotic pocket irrigation and postoperative oral antibiotics provides no additional benefit to the p

183 monella-infected hosts that are treated with oral antibiotics rapidly shed superspreader levels of th

184 We extracted oral antibiotics recommended for common outpatient condi

185 , we aimed to determine whether preoperative oral antibiotics reduce the risk of deep SSIs in electiv

186 Targeting bacteroidetes with oral antibiotics reduced hepatic immune cells by approxi

187 MBP with oral antibiotics reduces by nearly half, SSI, anastomoti

188 ined before transitioning to a dual-targeted oral antibiotic regimen.

189 6.1% of patients were switched to a suitable oral antibiotic regimen.

190 x-ray, and dispensed a same-day CAP-related oral antibiotic regimen.

191 irds of patients were switched to a suitable oral antibiotic regimen.

192 adverse events associated with commonly used oral antibiotic regimens for the outpatient treatment of

193 Two of three oral antibiotic regimens--1) amoxicillin, 750 mg three t

194 more efficacious alternative to traditional oral antibiotic regimes for UTI.

195 el preparation with mechanical cleansing and oral antibiotics results in a significantly lower incide

196 ed complicated S. aureus bacteremias without oral antibiotics results in high rates of morbidity and

197 , as compared with 44% of those treated with oral antibiotics (risk difference, -39 percentage points

198 for BJIs at our center would be eligible for oral antibiotics, saving a median (IQR) 19.5 IV-antibiot

199 for BJI at our centre would be eligible for oral antibiotics, saving median 19.5 IV antibiotic days

200 day of transition, sources of infection, and oral antibiotic selection were assessed.

201 SFX, an FDA-approved oral antibiotic, showed significant anti-tumor and anti-

202 were corrected by a course of broad-spectrum oral antibiotics started at weaning, indicating that the

203 We assessed the safety and efficacy of oral antibiotic step-down therapy for uncomplicated gram

204 ion, and secondary outcomes included time to oral antibiotic stepdown, hospital length of stay (LOS),

205 ar in both groups and include median time to oral antibiotic stepdown, LOS, all-cause mortality, and

206 Oral antibiotics still have a role in the treatment of m

207 Compared with the OPAT strategy, the partial oral antibiotic strategy had an ICER of $163 370 per LY.

208 g treatment discontinuation made the partial oral antibiotic strategy more cost-effective compared wi

209 ed from 3.30% to 2.65% per week, the partial oral antibiotic strategy was cost-effective compared wit

210 The partial oral antibiotic strategy yielded the highest treatment c

211 by partial oral antibiotic therapy (partial oral antibiotic strategy).

212 ions of topical agents with systemic agents (oral antibiotics such as doxycycline and minocycline, ho

213 For more severe disease, oral antibiotics such as doxycycline or minocycline, hor

214 Oral antibiotics such as metronidazole, vancomycin and f

215 prostatitis is broad-spectrum intravenous or oral antibiotics, such as intravenous piperacillin-tazob

216 adjusted for renal function), with possible oral antibiotic switch after >/=5 days (total treatment

217 addiction care services followed by partial oral antibiotic therapy (partial oral antibiotic strateg

218 recommendations were offered for the use of oral antibiotic therapy and the duration of therapy.

219 y of 4581 episodes of GN-BSIs, transition to oral antibiotic therapy by day 7 occurred in fewer than

220 Our single-center study suggests access to oral antibiotic therapy for PWID who cannot complete pro

221 g in neonatal bag and mask resuscitation and oral antibiotic therapy for suspected neonatal infection

222 l therapy (OPAT) and, in many cases, partial oral antibiotic therapy for the treatment of injection d

223 We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous an

224 sk was higher among PWID who did not receive oral antibiotic therapy on AMA discharge (adjusted hazar

225 .82) and not different among PWID prescribed oral antibiotic therapy on AMA discharge (aHR, .99; 95%

226 were highest among PWID who did not receive oral antibiotic therapy on AMA discharge (n = 46, 68.7%)

227 Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous a

228 g new treatment options (from monotherapy to oral antibiotic therapy) and use of prophylactic antimic

229 usually resolved during a 1-month course of oral antibiotic therapy, the median antibody titers to m

230 with IDU-IE were eligible to receive partial oral antibiotic therapy, the strategy was cost-saving an

231 to guide the transition from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy.

232 With each additional week of oral antibiotics, there was an increased hazard of Achro

233 ly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therap

234 to shift management of severe pneumonia with oral antibiotics to outpatients in the community.

235 Using oral antibiotics to transiently disrupt the microbiome,

236 Early oral antibiotic transition was significantly safer.

237 valent efficacy of early intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotic transition.

238 opportunities for earlier and more frequent oral antibiotic transitions because most patients demons

239 Here, we show in germ-free mice or in oral antibiotic-treated conventionally housed mice with

240 n with Listeria monocytogenes, germ-free and oral-antibiotic-treated mice display increased pathogen

241 ous treatment (199 patients) or to switch to oral antibiotic treatment (201 patients).

242 Oral antibiotic treatment eliminated spontaneous autoimm

243 an individual patient can switch from IV to oral antibiotic treatment is often non-trivial and not s

244 Oral antibiotic treatment of prepubertal mice prevented

245 There is growing evidence to support partial oral antibiotic treatment of severe infections such as S

246 utyrate-producing Clostridia, either through oral antibiotic treatment or as part of the pathogen-ind

247 ation of commensal bacterial populations via oral antibiotic treatment resulted in elevated serum IgE

248 rt who were in stable condition, changing to oral antibiotic treatment was noninferior to continued i

249 2 years]); 433 (47.4%) transitioned early to oral antibiotic treatment, and 481 (52.6%) received prol

250 s for when a patient could switch from IV-to-oral antibiotic treatment.

251 lines that recommend limitation of long-term oral antibiotic treatments for acne to less than 3 month

252 facilitates the high recurrence rates after oral antibiotic treatments, which are not able to penetr

253 Oral antibiotic use is both widespread and frequent in o

254 roxide should always be added when long-term oral antibiotic use is deemed necessary.

255 All prescriptions for outpatient oral antibiotic use within 5 years before the onset of s

256 (ESRD) with few studies having investigated oral antibiotic use.

257 cal modalities, and limiting the duration of oral antibiotic use.

258 ciated with decreased rates of postoperative oral antibiotic use.

259 Compared with oral antibiotics, use of intravenous antibiotics after d

260 The incidence of intolerance of the oral antibiotics was 16 percent, as compared with 8 perc

261 Mechanical bowel prep without oral antibiotics was administered to 49.6% of patients,

262 Confusion regarding how to identify oral antibiotics was revealed in both Africa and Asia.

263 Patients receiving bowel prep with oral antibiotics were also less likely to have a prolong

264 ebo was associated with a 26% reduction, and oral antibiotics were associated with a 58% reduction at

265 ted with routinely prescribing postoperative oral antibiotics were India (odds ratio [OR], 15.83; 95%

266 Patients receiving oral antibiotics were less likely to have any SSI (4.5%

267 Plasma concentrations of oral antibiotics were measured at day 1 and 5.

268 We aimed to determine whether oral antibiotics were noninferior to continued intraveno

269 Oral antibiotics were noninferior to intravenous antibio

270 s and the number of manufacturers for common oral antibiotics were overall stable between 2013 and 20

271 Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups.

272 ical response criteria were not met, further oral antibiotics were prescribed until clinical response

273 Outpatient management and oral antibiotics were safe in low-risk FN with no infect

274 preparation with both mechanical agents and oral antibiotics whenever feasible.

275 Gepotidacin is an efficacious oral antibiotic with acceptable safety and tolerability

276 As a first-in-class investigational oral antibiotic with activity against common uropathogen

277 ears with uncomplicated UTI who initiated an oral antibiotic with activity against common uropathogen

278 after clearance of bacteremia, transition to oral antibiotics with outpatient support represents a po

279 e compared outcomes of those transitioned to oral antibiotics with those who continued intravenous (I

280 cs alone were noninferior to intravenous and oral antibiotics, with a margin of 6% for difference.

281 and fewer than 29% to 46% were converted to oral antibiotics within 1 day of stability, depending on

282 Switching to oral antibiotics within 4 days after initial blood cultu

283 ram-negative bacteremia, early transition to oral antibiotics within 4 days of initial blood culture

284 d as discontinuation of IV and initiation of oral antibiotics without interrupting therapy.