ライフサイエンスコーパス: treatment arm

1 l of 200 patients were included (100 in each treatment arm).

2 lable for the efficacy analysis (181 in each treatment arm).

3 CD4 count fell below 350 cells/uL (deferred treatment arm).

4 233], P = 0.03 in fully adjusted models; all treatment arms).

5 for longitudinal intragroup changes for both treatment arms).

6 survival (OS) in the study population and by treatment arm.

7 controls by age, trial, follow-up time, and treatment arm.

8 PFS did not differ with age in either treatment arm.

9 ere assessed according to tumor location and treatment arm.

10 tation on progression-free survival (PFS) by treatment arm.

11 to generate the total 2-year costs for each treatment arm.

12 Analyses were conducted by treatment arm.

13 de 3 rash was significantly higher in the no-treatment arm.

14 ere assessed according to tumor location and treatment arm.

15 identify long-term adverse health events by treatment arm.

16 dence of skin toxicity was 84% regardless of treatment arm.

17 clusters of individuals are assigned to each treatment arm.

18 ular treatment arm and 9.1 for the as-needed treatment arm.

19 ere associated with longer OS, regardless of treatment arm.

20 tal of 20 patients were enrolled, 10 in each treatment arm.

21 y care center, with 13 eyes assigned to each treatment arm.

22 ractive effects between ERCC1 expression and treatment arm.

23 fibrillation, or CVD death, irrespective of treatment arm.

24 s were enrolled and assigned to the opposite treatment arm.

25 as assessed by wound care experts blinded to treatment arm.

26 y responses over pregnancy did not differ by treatment arm.

27 -life was significantly shorter in the rhTSH treatment arm.

28 ised brain volume, screening PASAT score and treatment arm.

29 1.45 to 6.24; P = .002) than in the standard treatment arm.

30 n-only arm and 0.7% and 3.3% in the combined treatment arm.

31 -only arm and 9.2% and 12.1% in the combined treatment arm.

32 ponse and remission were similar between the treatment arms.

33 lood pressure was repeatedly compared across treatment arms.

34 ond primary malignancies were similar across treatment arms.

35 ulated for each patient and compared between treatment arms.

36 , GUSTO, and BARC scales and compared across treatment arms.

37 ated with increased risk of bleeding in both treatment arms.

38 D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms.

39 nd ectasia after refractive surgery in the 2 treatment arms.

40 in the occurrence of adverse events between treatment arms.

41 %] of 181) and vancomycin (128 [71%] of 181) treatment arms.

42 vels of ESR1 were associated with pCR in all treatment arms.

43 regression models with interaction terms for treatment arms.

44 nts were not significantly different between treatment arms.

45 uality-of-life scores did not differ between treatment arms.

46 group (3 x 25 mg/kg) than in the single-dose treatment arms.

47 on also did not differ significantly between treatment arms.

48 ristics were similar in both zoledronic acid treatment arms.

49 ed to balance cohort characteristics between treatment arms.

50 ents to the control or clofarabine induction treatment arms.

51 difference in the proportion of AEs between treatment arms.

52 relationship of eGFR with end points across treatment arms.

53 ini-infected patients were assigned to the 5 treatment arms.

54 ose-limiting toxicities were similar between treatment arms.

55 overall survival time was 3.9 years in both treatment arms.

56 th of PCI and persisted up to 1 year in both treatment arms.

57 ns of patients showed recurrent fluid in all treatment arms.

58 y were not significantly different among the treatment arms.

59 m baseline to month 6 compared between the 2 treatment arms.

60 her the choline (n = 29) or placebo (n = 26) treatment arms.

61 or OS (P = .77) across the three randomized treatment arms.

62 function in both the placebo and pravastatin treatment arms.

63 lure, and survivals were similar between the treatment arms.

64 were randomly assigned, 50 to each of three treatment arms.

65 bserved difference in delayed anemia between treatment arms.

66 There was no apparent difference between the treatment arms.

67 asma viremia and quality of life between the treatment arms.

68 at 5 years remained high and similar across treatment arms.

69 terial ischemic events were uncommon in both treatment arms.

70 vels of ESR1 were associated with pCR in all treatment arms.

71 mination score was not different between the treatment arms.

72 tients) were generally well balanced between treatment arms.

73 of-life scores over time were similar in the treatment arms.

74 o significant differences were found between treatment arms.

75 se events did not differ significantly among treatment arms.

76 associated with poorer outcome in all of the treatment arms.

77 eronegative from both the placebo and active treatment arms.

78 The primary objective was met in both treatment arms.

79 median OS, 7 years), again similarly in both treatment arms.

80 [9%]), occurring at similar frequency across treatment arms.

81 paroxysmal AF were randomized to 2 different treatment arms.

82 from GI bleeding was low and similar in both treatment arms.

83 and rectum (29%) without differences between treatment arms.

84 ed mean change across medication and placebo treatment arms.

85 aseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms.

86 , no differences were observed between the 2 treatment arms.

87 MMAE drug in tumor tissues compared to other treatment arms.

88 rmance, or quality of life and sleep between treatment arms.

89 and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg treatment arms.

90 differences in BCVA or OCT outcomes between treatment arms.

91 data from clinical studies with at least two treatment arms.

92 als when fetal losses are unequal across the treatment arms.

93 were found in visual acuity outcomes between treatment arms.

94 or characteristics were well matched between treatment arms.

95 evere GI bleeding rates were similar between treatment arms (0.47 events/100 patient-years vs. 0.41 e

96 68 eligible patients started their allocated treatment (arm 1, 543; arm 2, 525), with completion of p

97 io between palliative standard-of-care (SOC) treatments (arm 1) and SOC plus SABR (arm 2).

98 ts but no interventions), 1,117 in the water treatment arm, 1,160 in the sanitation arm, 1,141 in the

99 (MF) -positive participants randomized to 4 treatment arms: 1) IVM annual at 0, 12, and 24 months; 2

100 lariae (MF), who were randomly assigned to 4 treatment arms: (1) IVM annually at 0, 12, and 24 months

101 ding artery ligation and were divided into 4 treatment arms: (1) normal saline control (n=14), (2) un

102 seven studies were identified comprising 139 treatment arms (11 general immune stimulation, 84 vaccin

103 s of ROP patients that (1) included IVB as a treatment arm, (2) included a control group without beva

104 ogic outcome among survivors between the two treatment arms (493/1,142 [43%] vs 486/1,067 [46%]; risk

105 Patients were randomised to one of two treatment arms, 5-10 sessions of cognitive behaviour the

106 randomly assigned 365 patients to different treatment arms (63 to rifampicin 35 mg/kg, isoniazid, py

107 cted adolescents were randomly assigned to 7 treatment arms: 8, 16, or 24 mg of moxidectin monotherap

108 did not significantly differ between the two treatment arms (89.7% v 87.2%, respectively; hazard rati

109 olled: 25 were randomized to the combination treatment arm A, and 23 to arm B.

110 Phase 2 compared two randomized treatment arms: a medication only arm (venlafaxine plus

111 Only one of six active treatment arms across the three studies offered an advan

112 difference in the primary end point between treatment arms (active, n = 46; control, n = 47; median

113 ty studies with 728 patients in a sequential treatment arm and 682 in a control treatment arm were in

114 umber of treatments was 10.8 for the regular treatment arm and 9.1 for the as-needed treatment arm.

115 ardless of treatment assignment (P=0.046 for treatment arm and baseline VAS interaction).

116 , patients were randomized to the respective treatment arm and dosed twice daily for 16 weeks.

117 We also investigated the association between treatment arm and ICH expansion at 24 hours.

118 2 of 76 patients (29%; 95% CI, 20-40) in the treatment arm and in 43 of 76 patients (57%; 95% CI, 45-

119 No significant interaction effect between treatment arm and investigated characteristics was demon

120 hborhood within the experiment's low-poverty treatment arm and predicted selection into poorer neighb

121 1 year, and through year 7, and compared by treatment arm and region, with Cox proportional hazards

122 There was an interaction between the treatment arm and the genotype groups (P=0.02).

123 the use of percutaneous interventions in the treatment arm and the P-value level.

124 time, treatment arm, and the interaction of treatment arm and time as independent predictors were us

125 ssessed by wound care experts blinded to the treatment arm and using objective wound assessment crite

126 Cog scores were compared by the 2 randomized treatment arms and by achieved LDL-C at 4 weeks.

127 these periods was assessed across randomized treatment arms and by DAPT score values <2 or >/=2.

128 facilitates complex experiments with several treatment arms and clustered data.

129 tervention study were randomly assigned to 4 treatment arms and genotyped for APOE (rs429358 and rs74

130 9-protein risk scores were similar in the 2 treatment arms and higher in participants with subsequen

131 ; 20%) and control (2 of 14 subjects; 14.3%) treatment arms and no significant difference between cha

132 e occurred in 4.2%, evenly distributed among treatment arms and subtypes.

133 wise prognostic for overall survival in both treatment arms and was more closely associated with extr

134 age, race, presenting WBC count, risk group, treatment arm, and compliance with cardiac monitoring we

135 incorporated 17 covariates, an indicator for treatment arm, and interaction terms between covariates

136 expected adverse events identified in either treatment arm, and pleural effusion was the only drug-re

137 Mixed-effects models that include age, time, treatment arm, and the interaction of treatment arm and

138 Women were allocated equally between treatment arms, and the study was not blinded.

139 In the combination treatment arm (arm A), statistically significant increas

140 VA from baseline compared with the as-needed treatment arm, as well as superior reading speed.

141 ctive coping style (P < .001), regardless of treatment arm assignment.

142 ndividuals with keratoconus who entered each treatment arm at 25 years of age.

143 ce in rates of diarrhea, fever, or anemia by treatment arm at baseline and at all phases of follow-up

144 lness-related anxiety was comparable between treatment arms at all time points (P > .05), regardless

145 Differences in MedDiet scores between treatment arms at month 6 were evaluated by using contra

146 alance in water and sanitation access across treatment arms at the start of the trial.

147 o last unformed stool did not differ between treatment arms (azithromycin, 3.8 hours; levofloxacin, 6

148 ovement across 8 weeks of treatment for both treatment arms (B = -0.57, 95% confidence interval = -1.

149 Cetuximab was added to each treatment arm based on promising preclinical data.

150 Pcnetmeta package in R was used to calculate treatment arm-based estimated rates, rate ratios, and pr

151 In multivariable analyses, including treatment arm, baseline covariates that were significant

152 ce was driven by an increase in the no-study-treatment arm because there was no significant change wi

153 ime-to-event prognosis into one of the three treatment arms: best (ie, longest time to first FAP-rela

154 In the combination treatment arm, bevacizumab was administered after the si

155 tes were macrolide-resistant in the combined treatment arm, but no resistant strains (0/13) were dete

156 from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months in both treatment arms, but no significant differences were foun

157 OS was not significantly different among treatment arms, but patients receiving prophylactic or r

158 Within each treatment arm, cases with events were matched to control

159 iscontinuation of treatment was evaluated by treatment arm, cause, and timing.

160 in gastric and nongastric lymphomas, in each treatment arm (chlorambucil, rituximab, and rituximab pl

161 No difference was observed between the 2 treatment arms (colistin monotherapy 6/128 [4.7%] vs com

162 No difference was observed between the two treatment arms (colistin monotherapy 6/128 [4.7%] vs. co

163 related genitourinary adverse events between treatment arms compared to placebo.

164 Each treatment arm consisted of up to 24 sessions of up to 60

165 -two patients were randomized equally into 2 treatment arms (control and intervention).

166 ye disease were randomized 1:1:1:1 to 1 of 4 treatment arms (CyclASol 0.05%, n = 51; CyclASol 0.1%, n

167 Adults were randomized into 2 treatment arms, DEC 6 mg/kg + ALB 400 mg (N = 12) or DEC

168 Analysis of adverse events in both treatment arms demonstrated very little difference betwe

169 Treatment arms did not differ significantly in OS, intra

170 r mixed-effects models were used to identify treatment arm differences on PRO end points and differen

171 aseline and biannually were compared between treatment arms during a median follow-up of 3.81 years.

172 in MiToS stage showed no difference between treatment arms during double-blind treatment, but during

173 ondary trial end points were compared across treatment arms (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replaceme

174 hat adding three events to one of the trials treatment arms eliminated its statistical significance.

175 CR, followed by HER2-enriched subtype, ESR1, treatment arm, ER immunohistochemical analysis scores, G

176 usting for clinicopathological variables and treatment arms, ERBB2/HER2, HER2-enriched subtype, ESR1,

177 urned-shockable rhythms were balanced across treatment arms, except that recipients of a placebo incl

178 cant interaction between PD-L1 CPS >= 10 and treatment arm for progression-free survival or overall s

179 moderate bleeding rates were similar between treatment arms for both EL (OR [95% CI], 1.24 [0.58-2.66

180 No differences were seen in cCR between treatment arms for either histology (adenocarcinoma or s

181 Patients were well matched between the treatment arms for patient and tumor characteristics: 26

182 er there were differences in survival across treatment arms for patients with different baseline biom

183 ess and compare the outcomes among different treatment arms for the primary outcomes.

184 d zinc supplements in addition to ORS in all treatment arms (free in groups 1 and 3 and for sale in g

185 Here, we compared multiple treatment arms from a community-randomized trial to eval

186 Numerically, success rates for treatment arms from studies with one versus more than on

187 entive were the common elements between both treatment arms, further research is required to establis

188 a mean BCVA of 5.5 letters and the as-needed treatment arm gaining 0.6 letters.

189 every 12 weeks (P = 0.008), with the regular treatment arm gaining a mean BCVA of 5.5 letters and the

190 More patients in the 33 degrees C treatment arm had hyperglycemia.

191 The two treatment arms had similar response (HR = 1.08, 95% CI (

192 n the first 10 mo did not differ between the treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06; 95% CI 0.61-1.84

193 rs were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA

194 Irrespective of treatment arm, high Z(va) and low tricuspid annulus plan

195 ifference in the time to IRIS events between treatment arms (HR 1.08, 95% CI (0.66, 1.77), log-rank t

196 stent thrombosis were recorded according to treatment arm in both study groups (4.0% versus 3.1%; HR

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

198 We found no difference between treatment arms in CBF or regional volumes.

199 e as a group-wise efficacy threshold between treatment arms in clinical studies in which controllers

200 As the difference between treatment arms in PB-MRD response rates increased, a red

201 larly, we did not detect differences between treatment arms in secondary endpoints.

202 ilar significant decrease in mean BP in both treatment arms in the subgroup with baseline hypertensio

203 The treatment arms included (1) topical natamycin 5% alone,

204 associated with differential PFS between the treatment arms, including new immunomodulatory and angio

205 After multivariable adjustment, treatment arm independently predicted MI at months 12 to

206 A regression model including a Nocardia-treatment arm interaction found corticosteroid use assoc

207 after adjusting for sex, treatment arm, sex-treatment arm interaction, pretreatment CD4 cell count,

208 In multivariable analysis treatment arm, intrinsic subtype, HER2 amplicon gene exp

209 Both active treatment arms led to a substantial and sustained reduct

210 Both active treatment arms led to induction of dual IL-4/IL-10-produ

211 Control and treatment arm loss to follow-up and withdrawal were 24%

212 favorable outcomes in the pretransplant DAA treatment arm (low availability of HCV(+) organs, low co

213 ion assessed modified AREDS supplements in 4 treatment arms: lower zinc dosage, omission of beta-caro

214 Results In both treatment arms, median ages were 56 (younger group) and

215 delayed the tumor growth compared to control treatment arms MMAE, MMAE-linker conjugate and ALDC3.

216 This difference was associated with treatment arm: Mortality rates among patients with CoR i

217 Across studies and treatment arms, most patients completed 12 weeks of trea

218 om 31 high-risk SMM patients included in the treatment arm of the QUIREDEX trial, and with longitudin

219 at least 1 dose of the study drug in the on-treatment arm of the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once-daily O

220 The regular treatment arm of the study showed significantly improved

221 Of the 12 participants in the active treatment arm of the SYCAMORE study, 11 (92%) were resta

222 The inclusion of metformin in the treatment arms of cancer clinical trials is based on imp

223 ase for observational cohort studies and non-treatment arms of randomised controlled trials reporting

224 lly different in the low- and high-intensity treatment arms of the Acute Renal Failure Trial Network

225 ed 65 previous subjects from the ranibizumab treatment arms of the ANCHOR, MARINA, and HORIZON trials

226 e ranibizumab plus prompt and deferred laser treatment arms of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Rese

227 alyzed 1- and 3-year mortality rates in both treatment arms of the RCT to identify patient groups tha

228 patients with atrial fibrillation from the 3 treatment arms of the RE-LY trial (Randomized Evaluation

229 in TD OCT and synthesized SD OCT in the two treatment arms of the UKGTS was compared.

230 There was minimal impact of treatment arm on the development and maintenance of mala

231 rnating with soap and water every other day (treatment arm) or to bathing with soap and water daily (

232 ve ART either at study enrollment (immediate treatment arm) or when their CD4 count fell below 350 ce

233 2 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms over 4 years.

234 placebo from 86.5% to 67.4% in the combined treatment arms (p = 0.046) and total hemorrhage volume f

235 in placebo to 0.8 +/- 2.1 ml in the combined treatment arms (p = 0.066).

236 h decreasing levels was significant for both treatment arms: p = 0.0035 for SC and p = 0.01 for IV cr

237 d in 2, 7, and 3 early, late, and sequential treatment arm patients, respectively.

238 In the every-6-weeks interval treatment arm, patients received 9 injections, whereas i

239 rtum and post-partum phases throughout their treatment arm periods.

240 No significant interaction was observed with treatment arm (placebo IQ-OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.87

241 Regardless of treatment arm, poorer fine motor performance correlated

242 infection prevalence was lower in the water treatment arm (prevalence ratio [PR]: 0.82 [95% CI 0.67,

243 in clinician-reported toxic effects between treatment arms, QOL analysis demonstrated a clinically m

244 ing for risk group assignment into different treatment arms, ranging from significant treatment reduc

245 Both treatment arms received standard anticoagulation.

246 and monthly intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg treatment arms, respectively.

247 n the early, late integrated, and sequential treatment arms, respectively.

248 in the PDS 10-mg/ml, 40-mg/ml, and 100-mg/ml treatment arms, respectively.

249 ome (combination of sepsis and death) in the treatment arm (risk ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval

250 By considering the 3 treatment arms separately, no difference in outcome was

251 .03; P = .035), and after adjusting for sex, treatment arm, sex-treatment arm interaction, pretreatme

252 All treatment arms showed marked behavioral improvements fro

253 ned to one of the following four parallel GA treatment arms (six patients per arm): a biweekly schedu

254 Effects were similar between treatment arms, suggesting that women were attributing a

255 transplants were randomized to one of three treatment arms: tacrolimus extended-release (Astagraf XL

256 identify the reported ORR for each eligible treatment arm that had been presented publicly.

257 nters were randomized to a control arm and a treatment arm that received 3 doses of acidified nitrite

258 s that provide isoflavone aglycones in their treatment arm, the average effect was further significan

259 Regardless of treatment arm, the number of Shh+ hepatocytes correlated

260 While cure rates were >95% in both treatment arms, the Pfkelch13 R561H mutation was identif

261 008, and May 27, 2010, to 1 of 3 neoadjuvant treatment arms: trastuzumab, lapatinib, or the combinati

262 In both treatment arms, troponin-positive patients were planned

263 In this subgroup, the ORR was 37% in the treatment arm versus 2% in the placebo arm.

264 Major bleeding was also similar across the 3 treatment arms: warfarin 11 (2.98%/year), edoxaban high

265 antly, the improved outcome in the beva+CCNU treatment arm was not explained by an uneven distributio

266 rt study (n = 257) stratified by country and treatment arm was performed.

267 hort study (n=257) stratified by country and treatment arm was performed.

268 ostoperatively, mean UDVA difference between treatment arms was -0.01 logMAR (-0.05 to 0.03), and mea

269 The difference in mean BCVA between treatment arms was 1.8 letters in favor of ranibizumab a

270 The treatment-assignment rate to treatment arms was assessed.

271 cance, in rates of RNFLT change in the UKGTS treatment arms was enhanced and RNFLT change became a st

272 age, the difference in decline between the 2 treatment arms was not significant (P = .09).

273 No PFS difference between treatment arms was observed in Bcl-2/IgH-positive patien

274 In each treatment arm, we allowed simulated individuals to move

275 As the dose intensity was comparable in both treatment arms, we investigated whether the number of do

276 In both treatment arms, we observed significant trends for lower

277 Patients in the other treatment arm were allowed to heal by second intent.

278 Differences in rapid decline by treatment arm were apparent in the first year (odds rati

279 sted illness rates (illnesses per sample) by treatment arm were calculated using Poisson regression.

280 A total of 186 patients from each treatment arm were included in the primary efficacy anal

281 equential treatment arm and 682 in a control treatment arm were included.

282 s of insulin resistance after adjustment for treatment arm were seen.

283 Both treatment arms were assumed to result in 9 lines of visi

284 Declines in bAs observed in the remaining treatment arms were not significantly different from tho

285 No changes in liver function tests between treatment arms were observed 1 month after TARE (P > .15

286 Differences in adherence between treatment arms were observed from 12 months onward (all

287 The baseline characteristics of the 2 treatment arms were similar (mean age, 61 years; 43% fem

288 Treatment arms were well matched for baseline characteri

289 by Ki67 (P < 0.01) were demonstrated in the treatment arm, when compared with the control arm.

290 ter overall survival (OS), similarly in both treatment arms, whereas CNAs in MYC, ATM, CDK2, CDK4, an

291 We assessed the impact of treatment arm with a modified intention-to-treat analysi

292 There were no differences between treatment arms with postdose nausea, vomiting, or other

293 thy Study (ETDRS) letters or more across all treatment arms with PRN treatment.

294 icant differences were observed in the three treatment arms with sustained response rates of 77% in t

295 ed disease outcomes and overall mortality by treatment arm, with sensitivity analyses for National Co

296 -emergent adverse events was similar between treatment arms, with a low incidence of hyperkalemia-rel

297 Rates of adverse events were similar between treatment arms, with the exception of grades 1 to 2 neur

298 using Cox proportional hazards stratified by treatment arm within study.

299 For the purse-string treatment arm, wounds were sewn in circumferential fashi

300 Statistical analysis employed a 2 (Treatment Arm) X 3 (Time of Assessment) mixed-method ana