ライフサイエンスコーパス: antifungal prophylaxis

1 between patients receiving and not receiving antifungal prophylaxis.

2 closporine and antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal prophylaxis.

3 limited and predate universal initiation of antifungal prophylaxis.

4 ding to whether they had previously received antifungal prophylaxis.

5 onazole or an amphotericin B preparation for antifungal prophylaxis.

6 uired renal replacement therapy and received antifungal prophylaxis.

7 ansplanted between 1990 and 1997 received no antifungal prophylaxis.

8 ted Cox regression model, patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis (57%) had a decreased hazard for

9 To analyze the efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) with posaconazole and itrac

10 o experienced recrudescent infection despite antifungal prophylaxis, African American race was an ide

11 The use of mold-active azoles for antifungal prophylaxis after allogeneic stem cell transp

12 Antifungal prophylaxis after heart transplantation is us

13 for recrudescent coccidioidomycosis (despite antifungal prophylaxis) after transplantation.

14 inib in patients receiving concomitant azole antifungal prophylaxis and gemtuzumab ozogamicin with th

15 All patients received antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis and remained on study until they

16 Antifungal prophylaxis and remission of cancer predicted

17 Antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis are only recommended for patients

18 Although most lung transplant centers use antifungal prophylaxis, consensus on the strategy, choic

19 Antifungal prophylaxis effectively suppressed recrudesce

20 Two of six patients with IA receiving antifungal prophylaxis had false-negative results.

21 ce of invasive fungal infection; however, no antifungal prophylaxis has been proven to be effective.

22 On the one hand, antifungal prophylaxis has mitigated, but not eliminated

23 Antifungal prophylaxis has substantially decreased the r

24 rly detection of subclinical disease and how antifungal prophylaxis impacts assay performance.

25 Use of antifungal prophylaxis, improvements in infection contro

26 , placebo-controlled trial of caspofungin as antifungal prophylaxis in 222 adults who were in the ICU

27 e care unit would also indicate the need for antifungal prophylaxis in all exposed patients.

28 cafungin was noninferior to standard care as antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant patients at h

29 part of a randomized, double-blind trial of antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients at

30 zed controlled trials comparing regimens for antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients.

31 imited data exist regarding echinocandins as antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients.

32 0 mg/kg) liposomal amphotericin B (LamB) for antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplantation (LT) rec

33 valuate the role of weekly high-dose ABLC as antifungal prophylaxis in patients at lower risk for nep

34 Antifungal prophylaxis in pediatric AML patients was ass

35 s use may require targeted administration of antifungal prophylaxis in the immediate posttransplant p

36 Data on the comparative effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in this population are limited.

37 Strict lifelong adherence to antifungal prophylaxis is imperative.

38 The potential role of antifungal prophylaxis is not yet clearly defined, but h

39 Antifungal prophylaxis is rational for liver transplant

40 Antifungal prophylaxis is shown to decrease the risk of

41 ericin B) and were independent of the use of antifungal prophylaxis or colony-stimulating factors.

42 es were independent of the administration of antifungal prophylaxis or the use of colony-stimulating

43 bicans Candida infections (P=0.04) and prior antifungal prophylaxis (P=0.05) correlated with poorer o

44 r the development of IFI and implement a new antifungal prophylaxis policy.

45 factors (OR 2.95, 95% CI, 1.66-5.24), while antifungal prophylaxis prior to fungemia (OR 0.20, 95% C

46 Overall, antifungal prophylaxis reduced the rate of proven IFI (o

47 estigation is necessary to determine whether antifungal prophylaxis should include antimold activity.

48 d 0% (0 of 11, P=0.03) in those who received antifungal prophylaxis (since 1997).

49 Antifungal prophylaxis status was determined by pharmace

50 ly available data evaluating the efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis strategies is limited by a lack o

51 infections were less likely to have received antifungal prophylaxis than those with non-albicans Cand

52 Predictive risk models may allow targeted antifungal prophylaxis to those at greatest risk.

53 Routine use of antifungal prophylaxis warrants concern given the emerge

54 In patients at high risk for IFI, antifungal prophylaxis was administered to 17% (4/23) in

55 Antifungal prophylaxis was administered to 61% (57/93) o

56 By survival analysis, antifungal prophylaxis was associated with a reduction i

57 No reduction in mortality with antifungal prophylaxis was documented.

58 Antifungal prophylaxis was independently associated with

59 Antifungal prophylaxis was prescribed only in 9.8% of th

60 38 patients underwent liver transplantation; antifungal prophylaxis with a lipid preparation of ampho

61 Universal antifungal prophylaxis with azoles is commonly used afte

62 a, antibacterial prophylaxis, and, probably, antifungal prophylaxis with itraconazole reduce the rate

63 g to multiple hospitalizations and long-term antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole.