ライフサイエンスコーパス: sirolimus

1 en (cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and sirolimus).

2 itching immunosuppression from tacrolimus to sirolimus.

3 olymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus.

4 emains unclear among LT recipients receiving sirolimus.

5 ce of skin cancer in renal OTRs treated with sirolimus.

6 plenomegaly within 1 to 3 months of starting sirolimus.

7 were spared, suggesting a targeted effect of sirolimus.

8 first 30 days), independent from presence of sirolimus.

9 ospholipid antibodies who were not receiving sirolimus.

10 in lung function and cyst scores off and on sirolimus.

11 vation who responded to mTOR inhibition with sirolimus.

12 s either alone or in combination with MPA or sirolimus.

13 ated with belatacept and the mTOR inhibitor, sirolimus.

14 sed cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and sirolimus.

15 cts of administration of the mTOR inhibitor, sirolimus.

16 alities were blocked by the mTORC1 inhibitor sirolimus.

17 e 2-year follow-up period in those receiving sirolimus (0.82 v 1.38 per year; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32

18 nce levels were tacrolimus, 2 to 4 ng/mL and sirolimus, 4 to 6 ng/mL or, if calcineurin inhibitor-wit

19 Sirolimus (440 mug) was administered every 3 months as a

20 The day 28 CR/PR rates were similar for sirolimus 64.8% (90% confidence interval [CI], 54.1%-75.

21 was not significantly different between the sirolimus (69.1+/-18.7 mL/min) and CsA (66.0+/-15.2 mL/m

22 Among 10 patients treated with sirolimus, 7 (70%) had a functioning renal allograft 144

23 g/mL or, if calcineurin inhibitor-withdrawn, sirolimus 8 to 12 ng/mL with mycophenolate mofetil 2 g t

24 esions treated with drug-eluting stents (355 sirolimus, 846 paclitaxel, 1387 zotarolimus, and 343 eve

25 In human ADPKD studies, sirolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mT

26 Furthermore, we found that sirolimus activated ALK2-mediated Smad1/5/8 signaling in

27 decrease (to 2971 +/- 4014 pg/ml) in the OFF SIROLIMUS AFTER 12 MONTHS group (p=0.013, Mann-Whitney t

28 th baseline (to 787 +/- 426 pg/ml) in the ON SIROLIMUS AFTER 12 MONTHS group versus a 13% decrease (t

29 mixed-organ cohort of OTRs, patients taking sirolimus after developing posttransplant cancer had a l

30 Sirolimus alone resulted in hyperinsulinemia after oral

31 Sirolimus and tacrolimus/sirolimus also increased random blood glucose levels.

32 he patients had a clear glycemic response to sirolimus, although one patient required a small dose of

33 gs may also explain why the immunosuppressor sirolimus, an inhibitor of this pathway, can cause prote

34 Treatment with sirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, induced remission in all t

35 o known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period o

36 malian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus are increasingly used in cardio

37 troke, we administered the mTORC1 inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus to mice.

38 alian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, sirolimus and everolimus, are increasingly used after or

39 were used to assess the differences between sirolimus and its analog, everolimus, in the setting of

40 ul for monitoring response to treatment with sirolimus and kidney angiomyolipoma size in patients wit

41 cing drugs discovered that many drugs (e.g., sirolimus and linezolid) cause different AEs given patie

42 ission, and 4 were in remission with ongoing sirolimus and low-dose steroids.

43 Tacrolimus or sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil exposure was identic

44 received the same conditioning regimen with sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil immune suppression.

45 ntenance immunosuppression (IS) consisted of sirolimus and mycophenolate.

46 anistically, in vivo in BMP9/10ib mouse ECs, sirolimus and nintedanib blocked the overactivation of m

47 Sirolimus and related mTOR inhibitors are transplant imm

48 Sirolimus and tacrolimus/sirolimus also increased random

49 jury and podocyte number were similar in the sirolimus and vehicle treated groups.

50 and mycophenolate maintenance with switch to sirolimus and weaning over 2 years.

51 eceived an mTOR inhibitor (56 everolimus, 11 sirolimus) and 41 did not.

52 mycophenolate immunosuppression converted to sirolimus, and complete drug withdrawal by 24 months pos

53 , hydroxychloroquine, rituximab, eculizumab, sirolimus, and defibrotide, that can be considered in CA

54 ing toxicity, rapamycin (Rapa) also known as Sirolimus, and evaluate its effects on the inflamed lacr

55 ed doses), total-body irradiation (300 cGy), sirolimus, and infusion of unmanipulated filgrastim mobi

56 nolate, and steroids, and later, tacrolimus, sirolimus, and steroids.

57 HHT, we report here that the mTOR inhibitor, sirolimus, and the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, n

58 was 10.8% and 9.1% in patients allocated to sirolimus- and everolimus-eluting stent, respectively (P

59 rsus 0.13+/-0.69 mm in patients allocated to sirolimus- and everolimus-eluting stent, respectively.

60 omized to treatment with either polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 2,002) or du

61 erence in the incidence between polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents and durable polym

62 nrolled in the ISAR-TEST-5 (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluti

63 (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluti

64 Two adverse effects of sirolimus are hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterole

65 otocol suggests that low-dose tacrolimus and sirolimus are not toxic to islets.

66 05) or in patients who received abatacept or sirolimus as compared with other therapies, and in patie

67 multicenter prospective clinical trial using sirolimus as monotherapy.

68 rom 1998 to 2010, identifying a cohort using sirolimus as part of the initial immunosuppression (SRL

69 Ours is the first report of sirolimus-associated PRES in the setting of multiviscera

70 Larger studies are needed to quantify sirolimus-associated risk reduction for other cancer typ

71 e in serum creatinine led to the addition of sirolimus at 3 months after transplantation with concomi

72 Conversion to sirolimus-based immunosuppression failed to show a benef

73 ients, we investigated whether conversion to sirolimus-based immunosuppression from standard immunosu

74 We investigated whether sirolimus-based immunosuppression improves outcomes in l

75 TG induction, and caution against the use of sirolimus-based maintenance therapy, in HIV-positive ind

76 0.48 to 1.2; P = .255), compared with a non-sirolimus-based regimen.

77 Conversely, HIV-positive patients receiving sirolimus-based therapy had a 2.2-fold higher risk of AR

78 A sirolimus-based, CNI-free immunosuppressive regimen, whe

79 Twenty-nine patients stopped taking sirolimus because of various adverse events.

80 Treatment with sirolimus, but not the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus,

81 Taken together, our findings indicate that sirolimus causes depletion of intracellular Ca(2+) store

82 Various sirolimus-coated balloons effectively reduce neointimal

83 In the sirolimus combined with corticosteroids treatment group,

84 entilator at 3 months was also better in the sirolimus combined with corticosteroids treatment.

85 Peak sirolimus concentrations were 13.6 +/- 4.5 mug/L (24.8 m

86 ematical model predicted consistently higher sirolimus content in tissue for the higher dose stents c

87 tioned whether the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin (sirolimus) could attenuate the development and progressi

88 There are no published reports of sirolimus CVD in liver transplantation.

89 Although addition of sirolimus decreased aGVHD, survival was not improved.

90 clinical- and biomarker-based SR acute GVHD, sirolimus demonstrates similar overall initial treatment

91 Sirolimus-derived Tregs were phenotypically normal, aner

92 single sirolimus-eluting stent with a total sirolimus dose of 245 mug (n = 1), 194 mug (n = 5), or 1

93 .3, 14.5) days for the 245, 194, and 143 mug sirolimus dose stents, respectively.

94 BEL, mycophenolic acid (MPA), and sirolimus, either alone or in combination, were added to

95 (Multicenter Randomized Study of the MiStent Sirolimus Eluting Absorbable Polymer Stent System for Re

96 tion-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus eluting stent, paclitaxel eluting stent, evero

97 nt, but without significant differences from sirolimus-eluting (-0.2% [95% CI -6.2 to 5.6]) or paclit

98 d recoil contributed significantly to LLL of sirolimus-eluting absorbable metal scaffolds.

99 n acute thrombogenicity between the Magmaris sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable magnesium scaffold and t

100 milar scaffold strut thickness, the Magmaris sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable magnesium scaffold was s

101 INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-in

102 rial, early safety and efficacy with MiStent sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent are

103 dy (Safety & Performance Study of the Fantom Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold - Firs

104 Conclusions The Fantom sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold demons

105 d patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent)

106 brin deposition were significantly higher in sirolimus-eluting compared with everolimus-eluting and b

107 ckground A novel bioresorbable scaffold, the sirolimus-eluting Fantom, incorporates a radiopaque poly

108 ailure occurred in 48 patients (3.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting group and in 58 patients (4.6%) in the

109 stent thrombosis occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the sirolimus-eluting group compared with 15 (1.2%) biolimus

110 s underlying restenosis of the bioabsorbable sirolimus-eluting metallic scaffold (Magmaris) remain un

111 s with DM and MVD to undergo either PCI with sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents or CABG o

112 uting stents: the thin-strut cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and the stainless steel b

113 strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient

114 The thin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the bi

115 itaxel-eluting stent (0.39 [0.24-0.62]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.32 [0.18-0.50]) are associate

116 itaxel-eluting stent (0.35 [0.13-0.76]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.36 [0.11-0.86]) for target ve

117 f 1261 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent (1590 lesions) and 1264 patients

118 clitaxel-eluting stent (81% increase) and to sirolimus-eluting stent (47% increase).

119 evaluating the Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES; 60 and 80 mum strut thi

120 taxel-eluting stent (RR=1.57 [1.15-2.19]) or sirolimus-eluting stent (RR=1.43 [1.06-1.97]) was associ

121 omotion between MgBRS and permanent metallic sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) at 12-month follow-up in S

122 (PES) and is noninferior or superior to the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in terms of safety and eff

123 l randomised trials of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-e

124 site end point occurred in 10.5% for MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent and in 11.5% for Xience everolim

125 rred in 346 (32.5%) in the group receiving a sirolimus-eluting stent and in 342 (33.1%) in the group

126 experimental approach, we created two novel sirolimus-eluting stent coatings with quite distinct dos

127 The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer

128 clinical outcomes of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer

129 er and endothelial integrity was impaired in sirolimus-eluting stent compared with both everolimus-el

130 of 883 patients in the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and 41 (10%) of 427 patien

131 nt had occurred in 40 patients (5.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6.5%)

132 ations occurred in 12 patients (1.7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1.4%) in

133 s pharmacokinetics in neonates who underwent sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in the arterial duc

134 In neonates after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation, peak sirolimus lev

135 imus-eluting stent with the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary total

136 r probability that the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent is non-inferior to the durable p

137 trathin strut (60 mum) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolim

138 ltrathin-strut biodegradable polymer MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent or to thin-strut permanent polym

139 ance of the ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everoli

140 of the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimu

141 Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coa

142 d patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coa

143 Nine neonates received a single sirolimus-eluting stent with a total sirolimus dose of 2

144 everolimus-eluting stent is as effective as sirolimus-eluting stent.

145 Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) proved noninferior to

146 cy and safety of biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES; Yukon Choice PC) versu

147 gned to treatment with bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer ever

148 sus early generation permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SES; Cypher) at 10-year fol

149 an BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and less ST than BES.

150 rolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus those of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are unknown.

151 Sirolimus-eluting stents dramatically improved the clini

152 Sirolimus-eluting stents may have clinical advantages ov

153 balloons (DCB), -9.4% (-17.4 to -1.4) versus sirolimus-eluting stents, -10.2% (-18.4 to -2.0) versus

154 profile of a novel thin-walled (115 microm) sirolimus-eluting ultrahigh molecular weight amorphous p

155 the vascular response to everolimus-eluting, sirolimus-eluting, and bare metal stent placement.

156 ior and vascular healing profile of a novel, sirolimus-eluting, high-molecular-weight, amorphous poly

157 rexate (standard) or tacrolimus/methotrexate/sirolimus (experimental).

158 mTOR-inhibitor treatment with sirolimus for >=3 months improves outcomes in LT for HCC

159 fetoprotein (AFP) >=10 ng/mL and having used sirolimus for >=3 months, benefited most with regard to

160 ver, little information exists on the use of sirolimus for the prevention of skin cancer in nonrenal

161 All participants were treated with sirolimus from 0-12 months.

162 ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) c

163 els often lead clinicians to discontinue the sirolimus from concerns of an increased cardiovascular d

164 than high-risk, patients benefited most from sirolimus; furthermore, younger recipients (age </=60) a

165 tilator use was significantly shorter in the sirolimus group (median, 7 vs 15 d; p = 0.03 by log-rank

166 o decrease endocrine apoptosis in tacrolimus/sirolimus group and reduced islet insulin content in sir

167 00.7-193.7 mm Hg], n = 17; p = 0.008) in the sirolimus group were significantly better over the nonsi

168 or, either with sirolimus (Rapamune 2 mg/d) (sirolimus group, n = 19) for 14 days or without sirolimu

169 respectively) significantly improved in the sirolimus group.

170 s group and reduced islet insulin content in sirolimus group.

171 up A: 264 patients) or a group incorporating sirolimus (group B: 261).

172 gher odds of treatment, whereas diabetes and sirolimus had a lower odds of treatment, and treatment w

173 required transplantation and were receiving sirolimus had no recurrence of vascular lesions and had

174 Sirolimus has activity against acute lymphoblastic leuke

175 of cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and sirolimus has become the new standard GVHD prophylaxis r

176 However, sirolimus has immunosuppressive actions and little is kn

177 n target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors like sirolimus have anticancer effects.

178 tus in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) on sirolimus have not been widely studied.

179 alemtuzumab-induced depletion and belatacept/sirolimus immunosuppression were studied longitudinally

180 Alemtuzumab induction and belatacept/sirolimus immunotherapy effectively prevent CoBRR.

181 Under hyperglycemic conditions, sirolimus impaired human aortic endothelial cell barrier

182 Here we show that sirolimus impairs glucose-stimulated insulin secretion b

183 This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of sirolimus in addition to cyclosporine (CSP) and mycophen

184 mmalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor sirolimus in four infants with severe hyperinsulinemic h

185 Finally, we studied the effect of sirolimus in kidney-transplant recipients with the antip

186 Sirolimus in LTx recipients with HCC does not improve lo

187 tudy was to evaluate the survival benefit of sirolimus in patients undergoing liver transplantation (

188 s, basiliximab) with delayed introduction of sirolimus in patients with renal impairment.

189 msirolimus and 37.2 ng/mL for its metabolite sirolimus in the 25-mg cohort and 484 ng/mL and 91.1 ng/

190 Persistence of sirolimus in the vessel wall until 1 month was 40% to 50

191 Prospective evaluation of sirolimus in treatment-refractory iMCD is planned (NCT03

192 Sirolimus induced clinical benefit responses in all thre

193 ing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall.

194 Intravitreal sirolimus is currently undergoing phase 3 trials in uvei

195 t the CVD incidence is similar suggests that sirolimus is in fact cardioprotective.

196 Subconjunctival sirolimus leads to a short-term reduction in scleral inf

197 In summary, sirolimus led to CR and durable responses in a majority

198 l studies was to achieve high and persistent sirolimus levels in the vessel wall after administration

199 r sirolimus-eluting stent implantation, peak sirolimus levels were 20 x higher and clearance 30 x low

200 Sirolimus levels were within the immunosuppressive range

201 tuzumab induction followed by belatacept and sirolimus maintenance therapy.

202 h early steroid withdrawal and tacrolimus or sirolimus maintenance.

203 Importantly, we demonstrate that sirolimus markedly depletes calcium (Ca(2+)) content in

204 In addition to calcineurin inhibitors, sirolimus may also be associated with PRES after solid o

205 Subconjunctival sirolimus may not be beneficial in the prevention of GA

206 Previous data suggest sirolimus may rival standard of care prednisone.

207 In the sirolimus/metformin and tacrolimus/sirolimus/metformin g

208 In the sirolimus/metformin and tacrolimus/sirolimus/metformin groups, mean daily random glucose wa

209 (CVD) risk; however, evidence suggests that sirolimus might be cardioprotective.

210 Patients were weaned to tacrolimus or sirolimus monotherapy at 3 months.

211 cipients (age </=60) also benefited, as well sirolimus monotherapy patients.

212 luated whether a CNI-free regimen, including sirolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, corticosteroids, and a

213 combination of various modalities including sirolimus (n = 5), bortezomib (n = 3), mycophenolate mof

214 75 transplanted patients randomized (2:1) to sirolimus (n=314) or cyclosporine A (CsA) treatment (n=1

215 MPA; n = 38), or mTORi (either everolimus or sirolimus, n = 33, target trough levels 3-8 ng/mL).

216 s were randomized (1:1), and 122 were AA1/2 (sirolimus, n = 58; prednisone, n = 64).

217 d (MPA, n=38) or mTORi (either everolimus or sirolimus, n=33, target trough levels 3-8 ng/ml).

218 ich is being investigated through a trial of sirolimus (NCT03933904).

219 olimus group, n = 19) for 14 days or without sirolimus (nonsirolimus group, n = 19).

220 nicaltrials.gov: NCT00355862), the effect of sirolimus on the recurrence of HCC after LT was investig

221 The effect of sirolimus or mycophenolate mofetil on NK cells was minim

222 ts with stents eluting rapamycin (now called sirolimus) or its analogues (everolimus or zotarolimus)

223 Monitored drugs were mycophenolate mofetil, sirolimus, or azathioprine.

224 This is a retrospective review of sirolimus pharmacokinetics in neonates who underwent sir

225 essive actions and little is known regarding sirolimus pharmacokinetics in the newborn.

226 Repurposing of sirolimus plus nintedanib might provide therapeutic bene

227 Sirolimus plus nintedanib prevented vascular pathology i

228 steroids with an mTOR inhibitor, either with sirolimus (Rapamune 2 mg/d) (sirolimus group, n = 19) fo

229 Sirolimus (rapamycin) is an immunosuppressive drug used

230 s estrogen-like compounds, antidiabetics and sirolimus/rapamycin.

231 Treatment of 1 patient with sirolimus reduced phosphorylation of S6 in T and B cells

232 mice showed that early treatment with sirolimus reduced the development of glomerular lesions

233 Sirolimus reduced yearly declines in FEV1 (-2.3 +/- 0.1

234 anagement, infections, abdominal events, and sirolimus related toxic effects.

235 Sirolimus remained > 5 mug/L, the trough level used in o

236 Sirolimus replaced tacrolimus if serum creatinine remain

237 While sirolimus robustly inhibits mTORC1, it has a minimal eff

238 ALPS patients were profound, suggesting that sirolimus should be considered as a first-line, steroid-

239 mune cytopenia cohorts were encouraging, and sirolimus should be considered in children with SLE, ES,

240 Administration of sirolimus significantly attenuated CD8+ T cell activatio

241 the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor Sirolimus (SIR) within 4-6 weeks after LT (group B, n =

242 on cyclosporine (CsA), tacrolimus (Tcr), and sirolimus (Sir).

243 All received belatacept and sirolimus; six also received alefacept.

244 s [EBV], or cytomegalovirus [CMV]) in KTR on sirolimus (SRL) + mycophenolate (MPA) or SRL + tacrolimu

245 We have previously described the use of sirolimus (SRL) as primary immunosuppression following h

246 Sirolimus (SRL) exerts antiproliferative properties and

247 The aim was to evaluate if sirolimus (SRL) had a different effect on weight gain th

248 ric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) and sirolimus (SRL) in oral dosage forms was well-preserved.

249 reported the role of tacrolimus (TAC) versus sirolimus (SRL) on the generation of regulatory T cells

250 he efficacy and safety of the mTOR-inhibitor sirolimus (SRL) plus prednisone (PDN) in patients with E

251 As conversion from calcineurin inhibitor to sirolimus (SRL), a mechanistic target of rapamycin inhib

252 nversion from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) to sirolimus (SRL), an mTOR-inhibitor (mTOR-I), has been sh

253 omized at 3 months to be converted or not to sirolimus (SRL).

254 vert from CNI (calcineurin inhibitor)/MMF to sirolimus (SRL)/MMF had a significantly greater improvem

255 The combination of belatacept and sirolimus successfully prevents islet allograft survival

256 While tacrolimus and sirolimus (T/S)-based graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) p

257 al trial (BMT CTN 0402) comparing tacrolimus/sirolimus (Tac/Sir) vs tacrolimus/methotrexate (Tac/Mtx)

258 termine if the combination of tacrolimus and sirolimus (Tac/Sir) was more effective than tacrolimus a

259 =0.25 mg/kg/day was significantly higher for sirolimus than prednisone (66.7% vs 31.7%; P < .001).

260 y-seven OTRs (29.5%) underwent conversion to sirolimus therapy after diagnosis.

261 mphatic disease unresponsive to conventional sirolimus therapy and in another, unrelated, adult patie

262 Thus, conversion to sirolimus therapy may be considered in OTRs who develop

263 Sirolimus therapy slowed down lung function decline and

264 In addition, sirolimus therapy spares steroid exposure and allied tox

265 events, most patients were able to continue sirolimus therapy.

266 last study on sirolimus with studies done on sirolimus therapy.

267 Most patients were able to tolerate sirolimus therapy.

268 in the porcine coronary model to investigate sirolimus tissue levels at different time points as well

269 In conclusion, the addition of sirolimus to cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil resu

270 Adding sirolimus to cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil resu

271 We tested whether addition of sirolimus to GVHD prophylaxis of children with ALL would

272 mum 1 g) every 8 h on days 5 to 35, and oral sirolimus to maintain a level of 5-15 ng/dL for at least

273 ial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding sirolimus to the standard cyclosporine and mycophenolate

274 ound in allograft rejection or death between sirolimus-treated and non-sirolimus-treated groups.

275 was observed in the sirolimus-treated vs non-sirolimus-treated groups overall (26 of 97 [26.8%] vs 89

276 n or death between sirolimus-treated and non-sirolimus-treated groups.

277 tion in skin cancer risk was observed in the sirolimus-treated vs non-sirolimus-treated groups overal

278 (subhazard ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.5-6.4), and sirolimus treatment (subhazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0

279 These included recommendations for sirolimus treatment and vascular endothelial growth fact

280 Late sirolimus treatment did not reduce albuminuria or the pr

281 t baseline and 12 months, and decreases with sirolimus treatment in adults with tuberous sclerosis co

282 The initial beneficial effects of sirolimus treatment were not observed at day 7.

283 ven by mTOR hyperactivation that responds to sirolimus treatment.

284 , outcomes were improved for patients in the sirolimus-treatment arm in the first 3 to 5 years.

285 aking belatacept with lowered tacrolimus and sirolimus trough levels.

286 Sirolimus use for >=3 months after LT for HCC independen

287 esponse (CR)/partial response (PR) rates for sirolimus vs prednisone as initial treatment of patients

288 Sirolimus was associated with reduced steroid exposure a

289 Approximately 90% of sirolimus was found to be eluted by 90 days.

290 of improved disease-free survival (DFS) with sirolimus was not met, outcomes were improved for patien

291 Sirolimus was started 3 days before HSCT, taken orally a

292 Sirolimus was started on day 10 (range, day 1 to day 48)

293 Sirolimus was weaned over ~6 months and biopsies perform

294 Sirolimus was well tolerated with very few side effects.

295 Repeated subconjunctival sirolimus was well-tolerated in patients with GA, althou

296 liver disease and the use of tacrolimus and sirolimus were independently associated with PTDM develo

297 /- 2 years (29.7 +/- 12.1%) after initiating sirolimus were not significantly different from pretreat

298 rs (n=28, with 7 also receiving steroids) or sirolimus with (n=3) or without calcineurin inhibitors (

299 compared cyst scores from the last study on sirolimus with studies done on sirolimus therapy.

300 vealed freedom from CNI, but not presence of sirolimus within the first 30 days, as critical for rena