ライフサイエンスコーパス: everolimus

1 kely to discontinue treatment (31% v 12% for everolimus).

2 s, 846 paclitaxel, 1387 zotarolimus, and 343 everolimus).

3 to grade 3 hypokalaemia possibly related to everolimus.

4 rt transplant recipients, in particular with everolimus.

5 o, low-exposure everolimus, or high-exposure everolimus.

6 o exemestane plus placebo or exemestane plus everolimus.

7 ival benefit compared with those assigned to everolimus.

8 d with the mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) inhibitor everolimus.

9 e rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6% for everolimus.

10 istent with the known side-effect profile of everolimus.

11 mus, and 18 (14%) who received high-exposure everolimus.

12 oved progression-free survival compared with everolimus.

13 mproved the objective response compared with everolimus.

14 eed for dose reductions and interruptions of everolimus.

15 with relapsed TCL were enrolled and received everolimus 10 mg by mouth daily.

16 igned to apitolisib 40 mg once per day or to everolimus 10 mg once per day.

17 II trial, treatment-naive patients received everolimus 10 mg oral once per day plus bevacizumab 10 m

18 were enrolled, of whom 205 were allocated to everolimus 10 mg per day and 97 to placebo.

19 interactive voice response system to receive everolimus 10 mg per day orally or identical placebo, bo

20 nning on day 1 of cycle 1, patients received everolimus 10 mg plus exemestane 25 mg daily, with 10 mL

21 treatment schedule of pazopanib 800 mg/d and everolimus 10 mg/d (rotating arm) or continuous pazopani

22 Patients received oral everolimus 10 mg/d until disease progression, unacceptab

23 ade pancreatic NET were randomly assigned to everolimus 10 mg/day (n = 207) or placebo (n = 203).

24 out any dose-limiting toxicities; therefore, everolimus 10 mg/day given on days 1-14 with R-CHOP-21 w

25 1 and feasibility study (NCCTG 1085) of oral everolimus 10 mg/day plus R-CHOP-21 in patients aged at

26 exemestane (25 mg oral daily) together with everolimus (10 mg oral daily) or with placebo.

27 otide (60 mg intramuscularly every 28 days), everolimus (10 mg orally once daily), or both in combina

28 active voice response system to receive oral everolimus (10 mg per day) or placebo, both with best su

29 ents were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week c

30 :1:1 ratio to either lenvatinib (24 mg/day), everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (1

31 one before and 2 and 6 wk after the start of everolimus, 10 mg/d, in mRCC patients.

32 analyzed, 67 received an mTOR inhibitor (56 everolimus, 11 sirolimus) and 41 did not.

33 nivolumab (200 [55%] of 361 patients) versus everolimus (126 [37%] of 343 patients; p<0.0001).

34 nificantly different but trended in favor of everolimus (16.5 v 22.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.77 [95%

35 , everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (18 mg/day and 5 mg/day, respectively) admini

36 red in fewer patients allocated single-agent everolimus (25 [50%]) compared with those assigned lenva

37 ignificantly shorter for apitolisib than for everolimus (3.7 v 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 2.12 [95% CI

38 ety of two trough exposure concentrations of everolimus, 3-7 ng/mL (low exposure) and 9-15 ng/mL (hig

39 nvatinib alone (41 [79%]) or lenvatinib plus everolimus (36 [71%]).

40 Oral everolimus (4 mg/kg once per day) or oral respective inh

41 ased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8.3 months [80% CI 5.8-11.4] vs 5.6 months [

42 with placebo versus 29.3% with low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 18.8-41.9; p=0.0028) and 39.6% with h

43 tients) compared with 28.2% for low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 20.3-37.3; 33 patients; p=0.0077) and

44 ients; p=0.0077) and 40.0% for high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 31.5-49.0; 52 patients; p<0.0001).

45 41.9; p=0.0028) and 39.6% with high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 35.0-48.7; p<0.0001).

46 Everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhib

47 cy and safety of long-acting pasireotide and everolimus, administered alone or in combination, in pat

48 nged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38-0.98; p=0.048).

49 at week 48, 70 (83%) of 84 patients assigned everolimus and 22 (85%) of 26 allocated placebo complete

50 51.8 months) for those randomly assigned to everolimus and 37.7 months (95% CI, 29.1 to 45.8 months)

51 re was 11.27 months (95% CI 9.27-19.35) with everolimus and 9.23 months (5.52-not estimable) with pla

52 baseline, 193 (94%) of 205 patients assigned everolimus and 95 (98%) of 97 allocated placebo had comp

53 s were enrolled; 205 were randomly allocated everolimus and 97 were assigned placebo.

54 nagement of adverse events in patients given everolimus and chemotherapy is crucial.

55 rtrophy was present in 41.7% versus 37.7% of everolimus and CNI patients, respectively.

56 to treatment that led to discontinuation of everolimus and exemestane (the most common were rash, hy

57 (patients who received at least one dose of everolimus and exemestane and at least one confirmed dos

58 severity of stomatitis in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane and could be a new standard of

59 standard of oral care for patients receiving everolimus and exemestane therapy.

60 historical controls from the BOLERO-2 trial (everolimus and exemestane treatment in patients with hor

61 Lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib alone resulted in a progressio

62 ology and CTNNB1 mutations responded well to everolimus and letrozole.

63 th no relevant differences noted between the everolimus and placebo groups.

64 erimental treatments was concealed by use of everolimus and placebo that were identical in packaging,

65 minished mononuclear graft infiltration than everolimus and preserved ciliated pseudostratified colum

66 Everolimus and purine analogs are suitable options for r

67 Everolimus and R507 similarly suppressed systemic cellul

68 Rapamycin analogs Everolimus and Temsirolimus are non-ATP-competitive mTOR

69 The rapalogs everolimus and temsirolimus that inhibit mTOR signaling

70 We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in

71 ge in tumor tracer uptake after the start of everolimus and to explore whether (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET

72 placebo, 16 (14%) who received low-exposure everolimus, and 18 (14%) who received high-exposure ever

73 The EVERBIO II (Comparison of Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Stents With Everolimus-

74 edictive value of (89)Zr-bevacizumab PET for everolimus antitumor efficacy.

75 te that axitinib, pazopanib, vandetanib, and everolimus are also teratogens in these models.

76 of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus are increasingly used in cardiothoracic trans

77 f rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, sirolimus and everolimus, are increasingly used after organ transplant

78 analysis and could transition to open-label everolimus at the investigator's discretion (extension p

79 y endpoints indicate potential advantages of Everolimus-based protocols but also a potentially higher

80 fter early conversion from CNI to a CNI-free everolimus-based regimen.

81 Only everolimus but not R507, adversely altered kidney functi

82 between VHL mutation status and outcome with everolimus but not with apitolisib.

83 plantation to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or Everolimus combined with cyclosporine A (CsA) and steroi

84 e aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus compared with placebo in this patient populat

85 Everolimus completely inhibited phosphorylation of ribos

86 Everolimus continues to demonstrate a sustained effect o

87 imus monotherapy (rotating arm) or initiated everolimus (control arm).

88 n >/= 21 of the first 41 evaluable patients, everolimus could be recommended for further evaluation.

89 ) or liposomal doxorubicin, bevacizumab, and everolimus (DAE) (N = 13).

90 ncluded in the Scandinavian Heart Transplant Everolimus De Novo Study With Early Calcineurin Inhibito

91 Everolimus decreases (89)Zr-bevacizumab tumor uptake.

92 l with everolimus, our findings suggest that everolimus delays disease progression while preserving o

93 tating treatment schedule with pazopanib and everolimus delays disease progression, exhibits more fav

94 The starting dose of everolimus depended on age, body-surface area, and conco

95 Three patients discontinued everolimus early.

96 EXAMINATION study (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of P

97 y or percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus eluting stent (EES) for multivessel disease w

98 l with zotarolimus-eluting (ZES, n = 697) or everolimus-eluting (EES, n = 694) cobalt-chromium stents

99 These patients were randomly assigned to the everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS (n=2164) or the Xience cob

100 in which patients were randomly assigned to everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS or metallic everolimus-elu

101 in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb, Abbot

102 patients (2:1) to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbot

103 efits of coronary stenosis treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold are unknown.

104 Despite rapid dissemination of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold for treatment

105 The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold showed similar

106 or-initiated, randomized trial to compare an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everol

107 ndomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular (Absorb) scaff

108 The performance of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)

109 Theoretically, the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)

110 The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS)

111 Everolimus- and Biolimus-Eluting Stents With Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Stent

112 obstructive coronary artery disease with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold, as c

113 garding the long-term efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS

114 e available on the random comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and

115 Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds have

116 ular (Absorb) scaffold (1322 patients) or an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium (Xience) stent (686 p

117 bable vascular scaffold, as compared with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent, was within the

118 iolimus-A9-eluting BP-DES, second-generation everolimus-eluting DP-DES, or thin-strut silicon-carbide

119 bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience).

120 rbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-or

121 , Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience, Abbott Vascul

122 , Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascul

123 limus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the context of rout

124 composite secondary clinical outcomes to the everolimus-eluting metallic stent.

125 s; however, recent trials comparing BVS with everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES) raised concerns

126 eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and everolimus-eluting metallic stents.

127 The Absorb everolimus-eluting poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbabl

128 b BVS (n=2164) or the Xience cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (CoCr-EES; n=1225).

129 Compared with balloon angioplasty, everolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio [95% credibility

130 s who fulfilled our inclusion criteria (1351 everolimus-eluting stent and 3265 CABG), propensity scor

131 with studies showing worse outcomes with an everolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-elut

132 rison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Inter

133 rolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revas

134 stent group and in 45 patients (6.5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0.8

135 (10%) of 427 patients in the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent group met the 12-month primary

136 g stent group and ten patients (1.4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse even

137 t ventricular systolic dysfunction, PCI with everolimus-eluting stent had comparable long-term surviv

138 nuation before 30 days after cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stent implantation was strongly assoc

139 After contemporary everolimus-eluting stent implantation, women and minorit

140 Patients received 1 or more everolimus-eluting stent implantation.

141 luting stent compared with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a broad patient population u

142 limus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a complex patient population

143 action </=35%) who underwent either PCI with everolimus-eluting stent or CABG were selected from the

144 stent is non-inferior to the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was 100% (Bayesian analysis, di

145 sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with Bayesian methods.

146 luting Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-S

147 Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) randomized trials was performe

148 Paclitaxel-eluting cutting balloon, everolimus-eluting stent, and paclitaxel-eluting balloon

149 Drug-eluting stent, particularly everolimus-eluting stent, or paclitaxel-eluting cutting

150 eive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an everolimus-eluting stent.

151 eive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an everolimus-eluting stent.

152 olimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent.

153 ompare the performance of a BVS with that of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and biolimus-eluting ste

154 to everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS or metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and followed up for at l

155 afety and efficacy of zotarolimus- (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are limited.

156 Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) have shown similar rate

157 efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients presenting w

158 clitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) catheters and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in the treatment of bare

159 However, the results of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in these distinct scenar

160 Long-term safety and efficacy for everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus those of sirolimu

161 In the EXAMINATION trial, we compared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (

162 ase randomized to BVS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES).

163 ombotic complications compared with metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES).

164 us-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (n=450).

165 CI) with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or C

166 bable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with everolimus-eluting stents are limited.

167 atment of any type of coronary ISR: PCI with everolimus-eluting stents because of the best angiograph

168 Everolimus-eluting stents reduced the rate of cardiovasc

169 In patients with ITDM, everolimus-eluting stents reduced the rate of target ves

170 e SYNTAX scores by site assessment, PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to CABG with r

171 , the risk of death associated with PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was similar to that associated

172 PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was the most effective treatme

173 utcomes beyond 1 year and comparing BVS with everolimus-eluting stents were included.

174 assigned patients undergoing implantation of everolimus-eluting stents with confirmed nonresistance t

175 not meet the criterion for noninferiority to everolimus-eluting stents with respect to the primary en

176 ith drug-eluting stents (DES; paclitaxel- or everolimus-eluting stents) for reducing major adverse ca

177 At a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, PCI with everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with CABG, was as

178 Compared with everolimus-eluting stents, BVS is associated with increa

179 alence between stent types to superiority of everolimus-eluting stents.

180 stent thrombosis (ST) after cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stents.

181 s in those who underwent PCI with the use of everolimus-eluting stents.

182 rcutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using everolimus-eluting stents.

183 n and minorities vs white men after PCI with everolimus-eluting stents.

184 Everolimus (EVE), a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibi

185 We studied 12-hour everolimus (EVL) PK in 16 elderly renal transplant recip

186 in a 1:1:1 ratio to 3 treatment groups: (i) everolimus (EVR) + reduced tacrolimus (TAC) (n = 245); (

187 Comprehensive guidelines on use of everolimus (EVR) in LT are still lacking.

188 the incidence of WHAE in patients receiving everolimus (EVR) or mycophenolate sodium (MPS).

189 the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus (EVR) shows anticytomegalovirus (CMV) activit

190 or CNI-free immunosuppressive regimen using everolimus (EVR), but the significance of albuminuria as

191 tastatic breast cancer patients treated with everolimus-exemestane in first and subsequent lines.

192 m a clinical trial with the mTORC1 inhibitor everolimus exhibit a predominant decrease in AMD1 immuno

193 The mTORC1 inhibitor everolimus given for 14 days in combination with R-CHOP-

194 We tested two schedules: everolimus given in the fasting state either on days 1-1

195 One death in the everolimus group (acute kidney injury associated with di

196 otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneu

197 val was 11.0 months (95% CI 9.2-13.3) in the everolimus group and 3.9 months (3.6-7.4) in the placebo

198 litis obliterans syndrome (BOS): 1/43 in the Everolimus group and 8/54 in the MMF group (p = 0.041).

199 ths were reported in 17 (4%) patients in the everolimus group and none in the placebo group.

200 cerebral haemorrhage in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group and one myocardial infarction with sing

201 protocol amendment permitted patients in the everolimus group to cross over to nivolumab treatment.

202 reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the everolimus group versus the placebo group were neutropen

203 tomatitis (in 18 [9%] of 202 patients in the everolimus group vs 0 of 98 in the placebo group), diarr

204 in the cabozantinib group vs 12 [4%] in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 [13%] vs 7 [2%]), fatig

205 inib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), d

206 14 of 42 patients (33.3%, 19.6-49.5) in the everolimus group, and 24 of 41 patients (58.5%, 42.1-73.

207 the long-acting pasireotide group, 42 to the everolimus group, and 41 to the combination group.

208 ng pasireotide group, six (14%) of 42 in the everolimus group, and three (7%) of 41 in the combinatio

209 b group and 344 (84%) of 411 patients in the everolimus group.

210 nib group and 18.8 months (16.0-21.2) in the everolimus group.

211 e cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group.

212 = 0.003) and no leucopenia were seen in the Everolimus group.

213 The dropout rate was more pronounced in the Everolimus group.

214 in FKSI-DRS scores between the nivolumab and everolimus groups was 1.6 (95% CI 1.4-1.9; p<0.0001) wit

215 Everolimus has activity in relapsed DLBCL.

216 These studies indicate that everolimus has antitumor activity and provide proof-of-c

217 cancer cell lines the mTOR inhibitor RAD001 (everolimus) has significantly inhibited SK1 and VEGF exp

218 g-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to be superior to the first-g

219 abozantinib and 16.5 months (14.7-18.8) with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66 [95% CI 0.53-0.83]; p

220 Purpose Everolimus improved median progression-free survival by

221 Evidence on everolimus in breast cancer has placed hyperglycemia amo

222 combination of a somatostatin analogue with everolimus in lung and thymic carcinoids.

223 tly, biomarkers that predict the efficacy of everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) pat

224 on by apitolisib was less effective than was everolimus in mRCC, likely because full blockade of PI3K

225 ty of cabozantinib versus the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinom

226 This study evaluated the activity of everolimus in patients with advanced/recurrent T or TC p

227 ociated with HRQoL improvement compared with everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced

228 e promising in vitro and in vivo activity of everolimus in T-cell lymphoma (TCL) and pave the way for

229 s prolongation we noted with the addition of everolimus in the HR-negative, HER2-positive population

230 2007 and March 2014, 225 received open-label everolimus, including 172 patients (85%) randomly assign

231 In the phase 3 RADIANT-4 trial, everolimus increased progression-free survival compared

232 of HGPS TEBVs with the proposed therapeutic Everolimus, increases HGPS TEBV vasoactivity and increas

233 Everolimus inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor A

234 Everolimus is an oral agent that targets the mammalian t

235 As everolimus is approved for tamoxifen-resistant or relaps

236 Everolimus is the first targeted agent to show robust an

237 y and efficacy of pazopanib plus vorinostat, everolimus, lapatinib or trastuzumab, and MEK inhibitor

238 The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus may be administered with exemestane to postme

239 Conclusion Everolimus may induce durable disease control in a high

240 ulse wave velocity remained stable with both everolimus (mean change from randomization to month 12,

241 nths, 95% CI 3.7-7.5) than in patients given everolimus (median not reached, NE-NE).

242 rim overall survival analysis indicated that everolimus might be associated with a reduction in the r

243 made a final rotation to either pazopanib or everolimus monotherapy (rotating arm) or initiated evero

244 %]); those with a suspected association with everolimus monotherapy were stomatitis (26 [62%] of 42)

245 posure everolimus, (n=117), or high-exposure everolimus (n=130).

246 assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328).

247 gle-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or single-agent everolimus (n=50).

248 ve either the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus (n=51), single-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or si

249 signed to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57).

250 ly assigned to placebo (n=119), low-exposure everolimus, (n=117), or high-exposure everolimus (n=130)

251 he phase 1 portion of the trial (three given everolimus on days 1-10, and six given everolimus on day

252 given everolimus on days 1-10, and six given everolimus on days 1-14) without any dose-limiting toxic

253 web response system to receive either 10 mg everolimus once a day orally or placebo plus weekly tras

254 ceive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day.

255 four) to receive nivolumab every 2 weeks or everolimus once per day.

256 convert from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) to everolimus or remain on standard CNI therapy.

257 cin (now called sirolimus) or its analogues (everolimus or zotarolimus) have produced contradictory r

258 y software, to receive placebo, low-exposure everolimus, or high-exposure everolimus.

259 s nivolumab and pembrolizumab, lenalidomide, everolimus, or observation in selected patients.

260 an alternative frontline regimen, ibrutinib, everolimus, or stem cell transplantation can be consider

261 tacrolimus, a combination of these 3 drugs, everolimus, or water.

262 stents, 96% of the patients received either everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents.

263 ngs of longer progression-free survival with everolimus, our findings suggest that everolimus delays

264 % [13-22] with cabozantinib vs 3% [2-6] with everolimus; p<0.0001) per independent radiology review a

265 We evaluated the efficacy of everolimus plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic

266 Everolimus plus letrozole results in a high CBR and RR i

267 iver transplant recipients showed that early everolimus plus reduced-dose tacrolimus (EVR + rTAC) led

268 ic renal cell carcinoma patients showed that everolimus promoted high expansion of FoxP3 (+)Helios(+)

269 1 (mTORC1) with the clinically approved drug everolimus (RAD001) or inhibition of mTORC1/2 with the e

270 nt patients were randomized at day 30 to (i) everolimus + reduced exposure tacrolimus (EVR + Reduced

271 Everolimus remained well-tolerated, and no new safety co

272 activated in all 6 TCL cell lines tested and everolimus strongly inhibited malignant T-cell prolifera

273 xposure tacrolimus (EVR + Reduced TAC), (ii) everolimus + tacrolimus elimination (TAC Elimination), o

274 s to establish the maximum tolerated dose of everolimus that could be combined with R-CHOP-21.

275 In Italy, a project, named Everolimus: the road to long-term functioning, was initi

276 he inhibition of mTOR and is associated with everolimus therapy for breast cancer.

277 ntained to 3 years in patients who continued everolimus therapy to the end of the core study, with co

278 ar PFS benefit as wild type from addition of everolimus to exemestane.

279 nistered the mTORC1 inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus to mice.

280 y assessed the efficacy and safety of adding everolimus to trastuzumab and paclitaxel as first-line t

281 cardiac events occurred in 1.1% and 4.2% of everolimus-treated and CNI-treated patients, respectivel

282 with the degree of p70S6K phosphorylation in everolimus-treated patients.

283 Adjunctive everolimus treatment significantly reduced seizure frequ

284 l failure was not suspected to be related to everolimus treatment, but respiratory failure was suspec

285 one patient) were suspected to be related to everolimus treatment.

286 mab, and the mTOR inhibitors temsirolimus or everolimus using 21-day cycles.

287 ss index from randomization was similar with everolimus versus CNI (month 24, -4.37 g/m versus -5.26

288 We compared Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in an investigat

289 Everolimus was administered orally at 10 mg daily and le

290 Crossover from placebo to open-label everolimus was allowed on disease progression.

291 Everolimus was associated with a 52% reduction in the es

292 Conclusion Everolimus was associated with a median OS of 44 months

293 Everolimus was associated with a survival benefit of 6.3

294 Treatment with everolimus was associated with significant improvement i

295 Apitolisib in comparison with everolimus was associated with substantially more high-g

296 , and hyperglycaemia (three [7%]); those for everolimus were hyperglycaemia (seven [17%] of 42 patien

297 l patients who received at least one dose of everolimus were included.

298 The everolimus with R-CHOP regimen should be tested against

299 relevant renal benefit after introduction of everolimus with reduced-exposure tacrolimus at 1 month a

300 These data provide the rationale to combine everolimus with standard treatment for DLBCL of rituxima