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 ant role in Fc(gamma)R-mediated inflammatory skin reaction.
2 o bind HLA-DR did not elicit an inflammatory skin reaction.
3 lls contribute to the sustained inflammatory skin reaction.
4 out the trial and contemporaneously with the skin reaction.
5 r multikinase inhibitor-associated hand-foot skin reaction.
6 s from a patient who developed an urticarial skin reaction.
7 covered by EORTC systems including radiation skin reaction.
8 3 toxicities were hypertension and hand-foot-skin reaction.
9 stant to IgE-mediated cutaneous inflammatory skin reaction.
10 s and other wound complications, and adverse skin reactions.
11 ulatory properties predicted for SAg-induced skin reactions.
12 n of drug and radiation did not modify acute skin reactions.
13 ediate (IH) or delayed (DH) hypersensitivity skin reactions.
14 history of athlete's foot but also caused IH skin reactions.
15 sitivity, photocarcinogenesis and eczematous skin reactions.
16 ower than what is required for deterministic skin reactions.
17 at 18% of IAVI G002 participants experienced skin reactions.
18 mon adverse event being transient urticarial skin reactions.
19 ; adverse effects were occasional mild local skin reactions.
20 ective, yet with limitations owing to strong skin reactions.
21 ed to sodium lauryl sulfate-induced irritant skin reactions.
22 in treatment were prospectively examined for skin reactions.
23 c anaphylaxis and to participate in allergic skin reactions.
24 y early event in the development of allergic skin reactions.
25 cities were restricted to grade 1 to 2 local skin reactions.
26 patients (95.2%) experienced transient local skin reactions: 1 (4.8%) herpes zoster, 3 (14.3%) transa
27  well tolerated in both groups, except for 6 skin reactions: 1 in the CMD group (1.0%) and 5 in the c
28 atment-related toxicities included hand-foot skin reaction (10%), hypertension (4%), fatigue (2%), an
29 ontrol skin (0%) (P = 0.0098) and nonbullous skin reactions (10.7%) (P = 0.0002).
30 grades) consisted of local DC injection site skin reactions (100%), transient post-DC infusion chills
31 sorders (18 [11%] vs 12 [8%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (12 [8%] and none).
32 n grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (154 [28%] of 559 patients in the sorafeni
33 s were common, most frequently hand and foot skin reaction (16 patients, 33%), diarrhoea (five patien
34            Adverse events included hand-foot skin reaction (22 [54%]), generalized pigment dilution a
35 2%]), neutropenia (22% [grade 3/4 16%]), and skin reactions (22% [grade 3/4 2%]).
36 ere hypertension (31 of 132, 23%), hand-foot skin reaction (26 of 132, 20%), and diarrhoea (seven of
37 quent adverse events were headaches (4%) and skin reactions (3%).
38 oups, previous DHR was mostly represented by skin reactions (46.4% in CMD and 82.9% in the control gr
39 tients [5%] in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (47 patients [13%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (
40 tigue (9.5%), diarrhea (8.0%), and hand-foot skin reaction (5.1%).
41 sorafenib than with tivozanib were hand-foot skin reaction (54% v 14%) and diarrhea (33% v 23%).
42  (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%)
43 events in the sorafenib group were hand-foot skin reaction (76.3%), diarrhoea (68.6%), alopecia (67.1
44 er in the sorafenib group included hand-foot skin reaction (8.6% v 0.3%), fatigue (7.3% v 3.6%), rash
45 higher related to regorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (83 patients, 17%), fatigue (48, 10%), dia
46 ant patients, 22 (19.8%) had heparin-induced skin reactions (95% CI, 13% to 29%).
47  ipsilateral forearm resulting in a positive skin reaction, a clear increase in IFN-gamma ELISPOT cou
48 trointestinal symptoms, hypersensitivity and skin reactions, acute kidney injury, and secondary infec
49 lorectal cancer who had developed no or mild skin reactions after 21 days of treatment at the standar
50 mediated allergic diseases with little local skin reaction and a minimal risk of anaphylaxis.
51 rating both genetic and clinical factors for skin reaction and dysphagia were established.
52 b and correlated with reduced acute allergic skin reaction and mast cell degranulation.
53 ves: To evaluate the association between BCG skin reaction and mycobacteria-specific immune responses
54 atients in stratum two had grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction and/or rash as dose-limiting toxicities (D
55  mild (grade 1 or 2) and consisted mainly of skin reactions and diarrhea.
56 events, all in the intervention group-mostly skin reactions and exercise-related pain exacerbations.
57 risk for unusually intense radiation-induced skin reactions and late tissue damage from high-dose int
58 th more patients developing chills and local skin reactions and more patients stopping PIXY321 due to
59 owever, p38alpha inhibitors produced adverse skin reactions and other toxic effects that often outwei
60 quency and severity, and assessment of local skin reactions and scarring.
61 ting characteristic (ROC) curves were 0.657 (skin reaction) and 0.788 (dysphagia).
62 vents were skin rash/desquamation, hand-foot skin reaction, and fatigue; 9% of patients discontinued
63 f actinic keratoses (primary outcome), local skin reactions, and immune activation parameters were as
64 ccus vaccines, delayed-type hypersensitivity skin reactions, and mucosal defense (secretory immunoglo
65 ecially nonhematologic AEs such as diarrhea, skin reactions, and neuropathy.
66 ded bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia, and skin reactions, and were assessed in all randomly assign
67                                 Chemotherapy skin reactions are more likely toxic than allergic react
68                                   Urticarial skin reactions are one of the most frequent problems see
69  recommended in adults with only generalized skin reactions as it results in significant improvements
70    Individual items on the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale also favored the MF for b
71  care provider score using Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale, the MF arm had significa
72                                  The typical skin reaction associated with MEK inhibitors is a papulo
73 ntinib were evaluated for the development of skin reactions at each treatment visit from October 2012
74 emas, as well as from localized inflammatory skin reactions at pegylated IFN-alpha injection sites, w
75 s that appeared to be treatment-related were skin reactions at the injection site.
76           Chemokine profiles of inflammatory skin reactions at the injection sites reflected an IFN-a
77 tamine-induced sensations, dysesthesias, and skin reactions but not the sensations and dysesthesias e
78                                Early adverse skin reactions classified according to CTCAE version as
79 existing liver disease or concomitant severe skin reactions compared with patients without.
80 ater incidence of nausea, sleep disturbance, skin reactions, constipation, and depression, with only
81                    Patients with >/= grade 2 skin reactions continued on standard-dose cetuximab plus
82          The size and characteristics of the skin reaction correlated positively with in vitro immune
83                             Conclusions: BCG skin reaction correlated with the magnitude of mycobacte
84 mmon adverse effects, most notably hand-foot skin reaction, diarrhea, and hypertension, compared with
85                                              Skin reactions due to study ECG electrodes were reported
86  the incidence and causes of heparin-induced skin reactions during pregnancy in a prospective cohort
87 ith LamOVA induced significantly lower local skin reactions during therapy compared to unconjugated O
88 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patient
89                                   Urticarial skin reactions following MOv18 IgE treatment were unlike
90                                     Expected skin reactions for an average patient are presented in t
91  of novel D7 reactions as well as increasing skin reactions from D3 to D7 was analysed separately.
92  (n = 44) was associated with an increase in skin reactions >/= grade 2 compared with standard (n = 4
93 city, hyperkeratotic folliculitis, hand-foot skin reaction, hair changes, verrucous papillomas, kerat
94 4%), hypertension (18% v 12%), and hand-foot skin reaction/hand- foot syndrome (HFSR/HFS; 90% v 66%);
95 h a cutaneous adverse event called hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), in which sites of pressure or fric
96    Nine patients (1%) had concomitant severe skin reactions; implicated agents were lamotrigine, azit
97 to 4 mucositis in 98%, dysphagia in 88%, and skin reaction in 85%.
98 orded one serious adverse event, which was a skin reaction in a child allocated to placebo.
99 irizine) on type I hypersensitivity itch and skin reaction in AD using a patient and examiner-blinded
100 ity, human basophil activation, and positive skin reaction in sensitized patients.
101 nces of stomatitis/pharyngitis and hand-foot skin reaction in the continuous arm.
102 high-dose group; only one (an acute allergic skin reaction in the low-dose group) was assessed to be
103 uded esophagitis in six patients and grade 3 skin reaction in three patients.
104 red in 1.98% (95% CI, 1.50%-2.57%), allergic skin reactions in 1.80% (95% CI, 1.34%-2.37%), heparin-i
105 sponse parameters associated with urticarial skin reactions in MOv18 IgE-treated patients.
106                                              Skin reactions in parents were common (4.8% intervention
107                       Protein IV elicited DH skin reactions in subjects with a history of athlete's f
108 portedly a difference in the diameter of the skin reaction induced by different types of skin prick t
109 re associated with a reduction in late-phase skin reactions induced by whole allergens and bronchial
110 rently available with regard to fluoroscopic skin reactions is based on a table published in 1994.
111 luded diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, mucositis, skin reactions, liver test abnormalities, and infusion-r
112 r clinical phenotypes of NSAID-induced acute skin reactions manifesting with angioedema, urticaria, o
113 nificantly higher maximum physician-assessed skin reaction (moist desquamation, 28.5% vs 6.6%, P < .0
114 on grade 3 adverse events included hand-foot skin reaction, musculoskeletal pain, and fatigue.
115 atment-related adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (n = 10); neutropenia (n = 7); fatigue (n
116 l interest adverse events, treatment-related skin reactions occurred in 47.3% of patients receiving e
117  patients (16.9%); drug hypersensitivity and skin reactions occurred in the experimental arm in 3 pat
118          The most common adverse events were skin reactions occurring in 49 (48%) of 103 CGM particip
119 ttoos and the frequent occurrence of adverse skin reactions, particularly from colored inks, highligh
120                                        Local skin reactions peaked between days 3 and 8 and declined
121  among arms were found in incidence of acute skin reaction, pneumonitis, dyspnea, cough, dysphagia, o
122 r (VEGF) are features of late-phase allergic skin reactions, previously proposed as a model of CSU.
123 se events (AEs) included diarrhea, hand-foot-skin reaction, rash, and hypertension.
124 ons, constipation, and depression, with only skin reactions reaching statistical significance (14.4%
125                                      Adverse skin reactions requiring premature discontinuation of cE
126 e patients developed hematuria and one had a skin reaction resembling grade 3 hand-foot syndrome.
127 ls (RS = 0.53, P = .03) and allergen-induced skin reactions (RS = 0.63, P = .008).
128  and resolved within a mean time of 32 d; G3 skin reactions (severe skin changes without pain) were p
129           Measurements and Main Results: BCG skin reaction size and characteristics 10 weeks after va
130  were PPIX photobleaching and clinical local skin reactions, supported by noninvasive reflectance mea
131 ed serious adverse events included hand-foot skin reaction (ten [2%]), abnormal hepatic function (fou
132  safety profile with mostly mild-to-moderate skin reactions that were observed to decrease over time.
133 fined protein associated with both DH and IH skin reactions; these reactions are characterized by dis
134 e reaction was headache; aseptic meningitis, skin reactions, thromboembolic events, and renal tubular
135 trongly associated with early-onset BCC were skin reaction to first summer sun for 1 hour (severe sun
136                       MC1R, number of moles, skin reaction to first summer sun for 1 hour, and hair a
137  25 pulmonary TB patients who had a positive skin reaction to mumps and/or candida antigens showed pe
138 ble-adjusted RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.05), skin reaction to prolonged sun exposure (for painful bur
139  using hair color, skin tanning ability, and skin reaction to prolonged sun exposure as surrogate mea
140 e ambient UVR, latitude, daily rainfall, and skin reaction to prolonged sunlight (R(2) = 0.30).
141  participant in the intervention group had a skin reaction to the sensor.
142 on the magnitude of the early and late phase skin reactions to intact allergens.
143 viduals that can range in severity from mild skin reactions to severe and life-threatening anaphylaxi
144 mal necrolysis (TEN) is a fatal drug-induced skin reaction triggered by common medications and is an
145  a significantly higher rate of grade 2 to 3 skin reactions under cetuximab treatment.
146                        The most common local skin reaction was mild to moderate erythema.
147                            Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction was reported in 24% of participants on sor
148 ecorded, and the incidence of CHG-associated skin reactions was 1.2 per 1000 days (95% CI 0.60-2.02).
149                     The frequency of adverse skin reactions was similar in the two groups.
150 patients with 1 or more TEAEs (largely local skin reactions) was similar across all groups in year 1:
151                                           IH skin reactions were associated with a positive RAST (14/
152                             Local patch-site skin reactions were common but decreased over time.
153                                 The positive skin reactions were found mostly for grass pollen (n = 1
154                                        Local skin reactions were most intensified in AFXL-pretreated
155                                   No serious skin reactions were noted during either study period.
156 ) plus irinotecan, patients with </= grade 1 skin reactions were randomly assigned to standard-dose (
157          Catheter-colonization, CR-BSIs, and skin reactions were secondary endpoints.
158 xicities including mucositis, dysphagia, and skin reactions were severe but tolerable.
159                                      Adverse skin reactions were significantly more frequent in the n
160                                              Skin reactions, when present, are well tolerated and onl
161 tients, 62.5% developed transient urticarial skin reactions, with onset during the first infusion, di
162 l wheal formation and complete resolution of skin reactions within 7days, and generated no systemic a

 
Page Top