ライフサイエンスコーパス: LFT

1 LFT abnormality was defined as an increase in aspartate

2 LFTs should be monitored during flutamide therapy.

3 LFTs use a premix format for a rapid one-step delivery o

4 value associated with at least one abnormal LFT before first diagnosis of metastasis at any site was

5 Abnormal LFTs were detected in 70 patients (20.9%).

6 The causal relationship between abnormal LFTs and IBD is unclear.

7 ver are the most relevant causes of abnormal LFTs in patients with IBD.

8 e most frequent cause for transient abnormal LFTs was drug-induced cholestasis (34.1%), whereas fatty

9 Patients with abnormal LFTs were less frequently on treatment with aminosalicyl

10 Metastases were detected after LFT abnormality (at least 1 abnormal test result) in 40

11 group, including 106 colon (FFT: n = 52 and LFT: n = 54) and 157 rectal cancer (FFT: n = 78 and LFT:

12 = 54) and 157 rectal cancer (FFT: n = 78 and LFT: n = 79).

13 ease or respiratory disease; statin use; and LFTs (albumin, transaminase, alkaline phosphatase, bilir

14 Tacrolimus was weaned as long as LFTs remained stable.

15 a cost evaluation, semi-annual screening by LFTs was calculated to cost $35.5/year per patient, incl

16 domized for laparoscopy and fast track care (LFT), 23 for laparoscopy and standard care (LS), 17 for

17 Isolated or combined LFTs for AST, ALT, gammaGT, LDH, and PA are not helpful

18 24 weeks, although the frequency of elevated LFTs suggests that monitoring should be frequent in youn

19 articularly those with a history of elevated LFTs.

20 tients with no apparent liver disease having LFTs in primary care.

21 3 were analyzed: 130 in FFT group and 133 in LFT group, including 106 colon (FFT: n = 52 and LFT: n =

22 Primary reasons included elevation in LFT levels (n=14); gastro-intestinal toxicity (n=9); dec

23 olimus resumed because of mild elevations in LFTs.

24 The 3-month LFT strategy was optimal when the incidence was >1.25 ca

25 ffectiveness ratio of screening with 3-month LFTs, compared with 6-month LFTs plus a 12-month HCV Ab

26 ibitor-based therapy, screening with 6-month LFTs and a 12-month HCV Ab test was the optimal strategy

27 ffectiveness ratio of screening with 6-month LFTs and a 12-month HCV Ab test, compared with symptom-b

28 ing with 3-month LFTs, compared with 6-month LFTs plus a 12-month HCV Ab test, was $129 700/QALY (for

29 last dosage at which the patients had normal LFTs.

30 nt, all recipients are well, with normalized LFTs at median follow-up of 7 (range 6-19) months.

31 The prevalence of LFT abnormalities is relatively high in IBD patients, bu

32 Moreover, most alterations of LFTs are mild and spontaneously return to normal values.

33 s to evaluate the prevalence and etiology of LFTs abnormalities and their association with clinical v

34 A nonsignificant improvement of LFTs occurred.

35 The overall sensitivity of LFTs ranged from 12.5% to 58.0%, and the PPV ranged from

36 Use of LFTs results followed by diagnostic tests has high speci

37 gs (1.5 to 2 times upper limit of normal) on LFT prompted a diagnostic or imaging test to confirm or

38 al side effects and had abnormal findings on LFTs.

39 urgery were randomized into 2 groups: FFT or LFT care (with only early oral intake and mobilization s

40 ic approach with limited fast-track program (LFT).

41 lity of ALFI remains to be established since LFTs did not improve an already high NPV for short term

42 tment records including liver function test (LFT) results at baseline and during treatment were revie

43 Five (15%) patients had liver function test (LFT) results that were more than eight times higher than

44 Conventional lateral flow tests (LFTs), the current standard bioassay format used in low-

45 Although liver function tests (LFTs) are routinely measured in primary care, raised lev

46 acute deterioration in liver function tests (LFTs) was identified ("start time" [ST]) that subsequent

47 liver enzyme levels on liver function tests (LFTs), and there were higher concentrations of MTXGlu3-5

48 including skin score, liver function tests (LFTs), blood counts, and lung function tests.

49 eening, screening with liver function tests (LFTs), HCV antibody (Ab) screening, or HCV RNA screening

50 was declined for high liver function tests (LFTs).

51 ssociated with altered liver function tests (LFTs).

52 onotherapy with normal liver function tests (LFTs).

53 However, the high NPVs suggest that LFT screening can allow clinicians to reassure the patie

54 Mean HLA-DR was 74.8 in the LFT group, 67.1 in the LS group, 52.8 in the OFT group,

55 Growth hormone was lowest in the LFT group.

56 clinicians to reassure the patient when the LFT results are negative.

57 nnually for metastasis and new cancers using LFTs (alkaline phosphatase, AST, ALT, or bilirubin).

58 so not different between groups (FFT: 12% vs LFT: 8%, P = 0.266).

59 ll population, nor in the colon (FFT: 23% vs LFT: 19%, P = 0.636) or rectal (FFT: 44% vs LFT: 35%, P

60 y difference between the groups (FFT: 35% vs LFT: 29%, P = 0.290), neither regarding the overall popu

61 LFT: 19%, P = 0.636) or rectal (FFT: 44% vs LFT: 35%, P = 0.330) cancer subgroups.

62 While LFTs added to the model's discrimination and sensitivity

63 ata from patients in Tayside, Scotland, with LFTs performed in primary care were record-linked to sec

64 pending on incidence, regular screening with LFTs, with or without an HCV Ab test, is the optimal str

65 d while undergoing semiannual follow-up with LFTs, including aspartate-aminotransferase (AST), alanin

66 For the model without LFTs the respective values were 43.8%, 92.8%, 15.6%, 98.