戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 e [D-/R+]; 146 receiving prophylaxis and 150 preemptive therapy).
2 d be useful as a guide for the initiation of preemptive therapy.
3 r viral loads) was significantly higher with preemptive therapy.
4  of acute rejection compared with the use of preemptive therapy.
5 hen CMV-CMI is detected and to continue with preemptive therapy.
6 tentially identify high-risk individuals for preemptive therapy.
7 mpared with polymerase chain reaction-guided preemptive therapy.
8 .74; P = .003; Q = 48.10; I(2) = 75.1%) than preemptive therapy.
9 patients deserves investigation of BG-driven preemptive therapy.
10 prevention can be achieved by prophylaxis or preemptive therapy.
11 trials to evaluate the role of risk directed/preemptive therapy.
12 egies for CMV prevention are prophylaxis and preemptive therapy.
13 biweekly monitoring with a serum CMV PCR for preemptive therapy.
14 for early detection and prompt initiation of preemptive therapy.
15 996 to 2000 who received oral ganciclovir as preemptive therapy.
16 velopment of PTLD and a guide for initiating preemptive therapy.
17 th among patients with rising antigenemia on preemptive therapy.
18 reasing viral load during the early phase of preemptive therapy.
19 of antigenaemia (CMV-AG>10) used to initiate preemptive therapy.
20 therapy and as a guide to the institution of preemptive therapy.
21 er with valganciclovir prophylaxis than with preemptive therapy (13%, 9/70 versus 23%, 16/70), but th
22 HD therapeutic approaches, with focus on (1) preemptive therapy, (2) upfront therapy beyond corticost
23  management of severe cholera, a strategy of preemptive therapy ($320 per death averted) costs less a
24 was significantly higher in recipients under preemptive therapy (38.7% vs. 11.0%, P<0.0001), with the
25 estinal biopsy specimens and can be used for preemptive therapy after intestinal transplantation.
26 ty to predict CMV disease and thus to direct preemptive therapy after lung transplantation.
27 ed preemptive therapy was of lower cost than preemptive therapy alone ( P < 0.001, probabilistic sens
28                        D+/R+ recipients with preemptive therapy also had the highest rate of CMV dise
29 follow-up (group 1) and received appropriate preemptive therapy, although 66 (46%) patients had proto
30 omegalovirus (CMV) antigenemia levels during preemptive therapy among stem cell allograft recipients,
31 oidentical (haplo)-HSCT recipients receiving preemptive therapy, among whom the rate was 14.5%.
32 allenges remain for defining indications for preemptive therapies and integrating novel and conventio
33  55.6% of the patients with CMV treated with preemptive therapy and 49.8% of those without CMV infect
34  chronic allograft loss are needed to inform preemptive therapy and improve long-term outcomes.
35                                              Preemptive therapy and prophylaxis with antiviral agents
36 hylactic agents, and further improvements in preemptive therapy and treatment of established CMV dise
37 % using only universal prophylaxis, 21% only preemptive therapy, and 33% a hybrid combination depende
38                                            A preemptive therapy approach deserves further study.
39 risk R-/D+ patients, when followed using the preemptive therapy approach had no significant differenc
40 rtunities to refine best GVHD prophylaxis or preemptive therapy approaches and optimize established c
41                              Prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are attractive strategies for this se
42 e to support either universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy as effective prevention strategies.
43 -organ disease observed; 5 patients received preemptive therapy based on clinical results.
44 r dose, strategies combining vaccination and preemptive therapy become more cost-effective than thera
45 ly, this could also be used as preventive or preemptive therapy before advanced kidney damage has occ
46 to those of controls who received PCR-guided preemptive therapy before the introduction of letermovir
47     Antiviral toxicity may be decreased with preemptive therapy, but effectiveness for CMV prevention
48 vs. 30.1 +/- 4.7 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) in the preemptive therapy cohort, P < 0.05).CMV replication was
49 for patients with CMV infection who received preemptive therapy compared with those who never develop
50 ipients with seropositive donors, the use of preemptive therapy, compared with antiviral prophylaxis,
51 he current era of effective prophylactic and preemptive therapy, cytomegalovirus (CMV) is now a rare
52 revent CMV include universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy; each has its merits, and will be com
53 ents who received transplants in the current preemptive therapy era (n = 233) showed only lymphopenia
54                                    Maribavir preemptive therapy failed to demonstrate noninferiority
55  a major challenge to define indications for preemptive therapies for PTLD and to integrate novel the
56 nced AIDS and further suggest that effective preemptive therapy for CMV can improve patient survival
57 that in an era of effective surveillance and preemptive therapy for CMV, AlloPBSC recipients can safe
58 mized controlled trial of prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy for CMV.
59       The efficacy of valganciclovir used as preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in
60 eillance, tapering of immunosuppression, and preemptive therapy for infection.
61                A phase 2 study incorporating preemptive therapy for PTLD is warranted to determine th
62                                              Preemptive therapy guided by pp65 antigenemia is a usefu
63 t liver transplant recipients, using routine preemptive therapy guided by the pp65 antigenemia test.
64  the advent of effective antiviral therapy, "preemptive therapy," guided by sensitive, early and spec
65                                 In contrast, preemptive therapy has the advantage of leading to lower
66 n (pp65) antigenemia (pp65emia) for starting preemptive therapy have not been well established.
67 he inflammatory reflex may provide potential preemptive therapy in deceased donors before organ recov
68 cal trial to determine the clinical value of preemptive therapy in SMM.
69  economic merit of universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy in the management of cytomegalovirus
70 l trial of valganciclovir prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy included kidney transplant recipients
71 ylaxis (for at least 3 months) compared with preemptive therapy initiated after detection of CMV DNA
72                       An alternate approach, preemptive therapy (initiation of antiviral therapy for
73                        Adding vaccination to preemptive therapy is expensive: $1745 per additional de
74 utbreaks at the inception of a refugee camp (preemptive therapy) is the most cost-effective strategy
75                                              Preemptive therapy may reduce symptomatic CMV infections
76 ediate (D+/R+) CMV risk (n = 82) compared to preemptive therapy (n = 47) had no significant effect on
77                                          The preemptive therapy of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation
78 he qualitative assays could be used to guide preemptive therapy of R+ recipients, but plasma viral lo
79                                The effect of preemptive therapy on indirect sequelae associated with
80 ed that the predictive nomogram would permit preemptive therapies or allocation decisions based on th
81 topped after two consecutive negative tests (preemptive therapy patients received weekly CMV PCR test
82                   The differential impact of preemptive therapy (PET) and antiviral prophylaxis (AP)
83 tudy population consisted of patients in the preemptive therapy (PET) arm of a randomized, controlled
84 tive (D+/R-) transplant recipients receiving preemptive therapy (PET) have not been fully defined.
85                        The relative costs of preemptive therapy (PET) or prophylaxis for the preventi
86                        The relative costs of preemptive therapy (PET) or prophylaxis for the preventi
87 LT recipients managed with ganciclovir-based preemptive therapy (PET).
88  measurements of the EBV viral load to guide preemptive therapy (PT).
89 ganciclovir recipients versus 21% of placebo-preemptive therapy recipients (treatment difference, -0.
90                        Defining criteria for preemptive therapy remains a challenge.
91 ter transplant for universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy, respectively.
92                   Compared with prophylaxis, preemptive therapy resulted in significantly higher rate
93       Antigenemia-directed valganciclovir as preemptive therapy seems to be effective for the prevent
94 rom 2013 to 2023 demonstrated that antiviral preemptive therapy started at cytomegalovirus viral load
95 used drugs and diagnostics, ways to optimize preemptive therapy strategies with quantitative polymera
96                       A targeted prophylaxis/preemptive therapy strategy within the first-year posttr
97                                              Preemptive therapy tended to decrease symptomatic CMV ep
98  of CMV disease was significantly lower with preemptive therapy than antiviral prophylaxis (9% [9/100
99                                Compared with preemptive therapy, universal prophylaxis incurred $1464
100  countries using no CMV prevention, and more preemptive therapy used in Asia.
101                           After prophylaxis, preemptive therapy (valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily) w
102 tients were randomized 1:1 to receive either preemptive therapy (valganciclovir, 900 mg, twice daily
103 d a kidney from a CMV-seropositive donor) or preemptive therapy (valganciclovir, 900 mg, twice daily)
104                                    Comparing preemptive therapy versus prophylaxis in D+/-/R+ patient
105 e mortality at last follow-up was 15% in the preemptive therapy vs 19% in the antiviral prophylaxis g
106 o 12%]) did not differ significantly for the preemptive therapy vs antiviral prophylaxis group, respe
107 D PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial of preemptive therapy vs antiviral prophylaxis in 205 CMV-s
108 -term mortality in a randomized trial of CMV preemptive therapy vs. antiviral prophylaxis in D+R- liv
109 tem cell transplantation (SCT) in the era of preemptive therapy was assessed among 1750 patients by m
110 MV infection under universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy was determined among 653 R+ patients
111                        The estimated cost of preemptive therapy was less than that of prophylaxis wit
112                                 QFCMV-guided preemptive therapy was of lower cost than preemptive the
113    The incidence among patients who received preemptive therapy was similar to that among patients wh
114    Thirteen years of outcome with the use of preemptive therapy were assessed in a cohort of 216 cons
115 h antigenemia who received valganciclovir as preemptive therapy were compared with 26.2% (21/80) of t
116 itive kidney transplant recipients receiving preemptive therapy were randomized to be converted (siro
117 plications for patient management, including preemptive therapy, which can be guided by PCR, especial
118   Thus, universal prophylaxis dominates over preemptive therapy with a cost saving of $27,967 for 1 Q
119  were allowed to break the blind and receive preemptive therapy with caspofungin.
120                      All patients were given preemptive therapy with CMV viremia monitoring after tra
121 ad discontinued LET prophylaxis and received preemptive therapy with ganciclovir.
122  $0.22 per dose, however, supplementation of preemptive therapy with mass vaccination will become a c
123            Moreover, patients who respond to preemptive therapy with oral ganciclovir, with resulting
124  of EBV/PTLD as well as being used to inform preemptive therapy with reduction of immunosuppression,
125 evidence of EBV reactivation and potentially preemptive therapy with rituximab.
126                        Two patients received preemptive therapy with valganciclovir for individual ep
127  kinetics of the decrease in HCMV load after preemptive therapy with VGCV in 22 solid-organ transplan
128                                              Preemptive therapy with VGCV provides control of HCMV re
129 ctomannan (GM) received targeted prophylaxis/preemptive therapy within the first-year posttransplant.
130               Using a risk threshold of 50%, preemptive therapy would have been prescribed for 8.4% o

 
Page Top