ライフサイエンスコーパス: antiviral prophylaxis

1 tio (OR) of reactivation with versus without antiviral prophylaxis.

2 ents, particularly in patients not receiving antiviral prophylaxis.

3 were included, among whom 373 (44%) received antiviral prophylaxis.

4 ely included D(+)/R(-) patients who received antiviral prophylaxis.

5 motherapy that can be largely prevented with antiviral prophylaxis.

6 ose who are anti-HBs-negative should receive antiviral prophylaxis.

7 eats asymptomatic CMV viremia, and universal antiviral prophylaxis.

8 ve antiviral therapy and no patient received antiviral prophylaxis.

9 ts of seropositive organs despite the use of antiviral prophylaxis.

10 Targeting viral dsRNA for antiviral prophylaxis.

11 ern that can be targeted for broad and rapid antiviral prophylaxis.

12 shown that reactivation can be prevented by antiviral prophylaxis.

13 ng late CMV disease after discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis.

14 odified as a result of the widespread use of antiviral prophylaxis.

15 er transplant recipients who did not receive antiviral prophylaxis.

16 in 33 liver transplant recipients not given antiviral prophylaxis.

17 ion of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), and antiviral prophylaxis.

18 Despite antiviral prophylaxis, a high percentage (over 90%) of h

19 There is increasing use of antiviral prophylaxis after transplant with little expan

20 phylaxis; 69% of the patients never received antiviral prophylaxis and did not develop CMV disease.

21 Additional protective factors included antiviral prophylaxis and having had a household discuss

22 CMV is a reasonable alternative to prolonged antiviral prophylaxis and may reduce unnecessary exposur

23 d prevention strategy combining short-course antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive cytomegalovirus (CM

24 ific T cell (VST) lines could provide useful antiviral prophylaxis and treatment of immune-deficient

25 EBV infections, which occur despite standard antiviral prophylaxis, and chronic allograft injury in p

26 m in liver transplant recipients who receive antiviral prophylaxis, and is strongly and independently

27 ation of a combination of targeted household antiviral prophylaxis, and social distancing measures co

28 erapy for hematological malignancies without antiviral prophylaxis, anti-HBs positivity is associated

29 Appropriate viral screening and antiviral prophylaxis are necessary to prevent infection

30 ing, and linking the results of screening to antiviral prophylaxis are needed to reduce the incidence

31 Results support HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis before initiation of chemotherapy

32 rejection in kidney recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis but was still an independent risk

33 Expanded antiviral prophylaxis can help delay the pandemic while

34 Antiviral prophylaxis can potentially prevent rituximab-

35 race/ethnicity, type of transplant, type of antiviral prophylaxis, CMV serostatus, and use of mycoph

36 ation should be monitored and routine use of antiviral prophylaxis considered.

37 If pre-vaccination occurred, then targeted antiviral prophylaxis could be effective for containing

38 Without effective antiviral prophylaxis, cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is

39 at-risk patients include a fixed duration of antiviral prophylaxis despite the associated cost and si

40 Antiviral prophylaxis dominated the current strategy, pr

41 who may benefit from alternative vaccines or antiviral prophylaxis during influenza outbreaks.

42 developed CMV infection and did not receive antiviral prophylaxis for CMV (P>0.20 for all variables)

43 tion never developed and who did not receive antiviral prophylaxis for CMV.

44 Antiviral prophylaxis has been shown to decrease the inc

45 Targeted antiviral prophylaxis has potential as an effective meas

46 prevention of graft-versus-host disease, and antiviral prophylaxis have enhanced the applicability of

47 With the use of targeted antiviral prophylaxis, if 80% of the exposed persons mai

48 his drug may be an important acquisition for antiviral prophylaxis in HBV-infected liver recipients.

49 MV) disease and its effective reduction with antiviral prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients.

50 The role of antiviral prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus (H

51 tion and avoid unnecessary administration of antiviral prophylaxis in recipients of HBsAg(-), anti-HB

52 The CMV events can still occur despite antiviral prophylaxis, including late-onset infection or

53 Such antiviral prophylaxis is nearly as effective as vaccinat

54 Routine antiviral prophylaxis is not needed, but using concomita

55 Antiviral prophylaxis is offered for 4 months starting i

56 Long-term antiviral prophylaxis is required to prevent hepatitis B

57 onvincing evidence that addition of CMVIG to antiviral prophylaxis lowers CMV endpoints and mortality

58 In addition, the use of interferon as an antiviral prophylaxis may be an effective way to limit s

59 regardless of the donor anti-HBs status, and antiviral prophylaxis may be indicated.

60 lop allograft rejection during the period of antiviral prophylaxis may benefit from extended and/or e

61 ta, data from the present study suggest that antiviral prophylaxis may lower the incidence, prevalenc

62 ctive data suggest that addition of CMVIG to antiviral prophylaxis may reduce rates of CMV-related ev

63 To determine whether antiviral prophylaxis might reduce the incidence of PTLD

64 routine CMV blood cultures in the absence of antiviral prophylaxis or treatment for viremia.

65 roups did not differ in age, rejection rate, antiviral prophylaxis, or level of immunosuppression.

66 Despite the application of potent antiviral prophylaxis, patients remain at risk for CMV i

67 Combinations of targeted antiviral prophylaxis, pre-vaccination, and quarantine c

68 potential role for booster vaccinations, and antiviral prophylaxis prior to chemotherapy in this pati

69 er transplant recipients who did not receive antiviral prophylaxis, qualitative and quantitative poly

70 to investigate the effectiveness of targeted antiviral prophylaxis, quarantine, and pre-vaccination i

71 virus (HBV) reactivation, but screening and antiviral prophylaxis remains controversial because of i

72 Cessation of antiviral prophylaxis resulted in reversion of this pati

73 P = .001), but not among those who received antiviral prophylaxis (SHR, 1.13 [95% CI, .70-1.83]; P =

74 The most cost-effective antiviral prophylaxis strategy is lifelong lamivudine.

75 An antiviral prophylaxis strategy was cost saving compared

76 (3) Antiviral prophylaxis strategy: All pregnant women are s

77 udies involving 1,672 patients not receiving antiviral prophylaxis, the reactivation risk was 14% (95

78 to investigate the effectiveness of targeted antiviral prophylaxis to contain influenza.

79 is may benefit from extended and/or enhanced antiviral prophylaxis to prevent late-onset CMV disease.

80 ospectively measured from discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis until 1 year after transplantation

81 (P=0.09) decreased adjusted mortality risk; antiviral prophylaxis was associated with decreased adju

82 ty, although resistant virus reappeared when antiviral prophylaxis was resumed.

83 of liver transplant recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis were assessed retrospectively.

84 Detection of HBV core antibody may prompt antiviral prophylaxis when commencing therapy such as ri

85 Antiviral prophylaxis with hepatitis B immunoglobulin (H

86 of liver transplant recipients who received antiviral prophylaxis with oral ganciclovir were retrosp

87 ed HSV-2 genital outbreaks despite receiving antiviral prophylaxis with several different drugs.

88 The authors compare targeted antiviral prophylaxis with vaccination strategies.