ライフサイエンスコーパス: immunosuppressive drug

1 phenolate mofeteil (CellCept), a widely used immunosuppressive drug.

2 d CTL were susceptible to inhibition by this immunosuppressive drug.

3 olite of mycophenolate mofetil, an effective immunosuppressive drug.

4 ejected and 41 successfully discontinued all immunosuppressive drugs.

5 tification of targets for the development of immunosuppressive drugs.

6 s, via dietary management, or as adjuncts to immunosuppressive drugs.

7 que tool to evaluate the biologic effects of immunosuppressive drugs.

8 of bioequivalence might prevail with generic immunosuppressive drugs.

9 he absence of potent, specific, and nontoxic immunosuppressive drugs.

10 ined for at least 6 weeks without the use of immunosuppressive drugs.

11 human diabetes is limited by the toxicity of immunosuppressive drugs.

12 cancer reflects exposure to sunlight and to immunosuppressive drugs.

13 nd alloantigen in the presence or absence of immunosuppressive drugs.

14 than 28 months since discontinuation of all immunosuppressive drugs.

15 en in historical dogs given two postgrafting immunosuppressive drugs.

16 inhibit neointimal proliferation by eluting immunosuppressive drugs.

17 eved through the long-term administration of immunosuppressive drugs.

18 struction of beta cells without the need for immunosuppressive drugs.

19 aPL, carotid vascular disease, or the use of immunosuppressive drugs.

20 everal toxic effects associated with current immunosuppressive drugs.

21 lood donors and 16 RA patients not receiving immunosuppressive drugs.

22 None of the patients were receiving immunosuppressive drugs.

23 cocorticoids and, in 13 patients, additional immunosuppressive drugs.

24 hazards associated with the long-term use of immunosuppressive drugs.

25 niques and the availability of more powerful immunosuppressive drugs.

26 herapeutic doses of enzyme in the absence of immunosuppressive drugs.

27 tribute encephalopathic signs to toxicity of immunosuppressive drugs.

28 o corticosteroids and one or more additional immunosuppressive drugs.

29 n be attributed to the introduction of newer immunosuppressive drugs.

30 erance or the ability to wean from or reduce immunosuppressive drugs.

31 in 13, and 12 responded to reinstitution of immunosuppressive drugs.

32 muscle actin Abs, and disease remission with immunosuppressive drugs.

33 es of triptolide as leads for anticancer and immunosuppressive drugs.

34 ant programs and use of inexpensive, generic immunosuppressive drugs.

35 d with better serologic responses than other immunosuppressive drugs.

36 unwanted immune responses often use broadly immunosuppressive drugs.

37 ALL) following treatments including numerous immunosuppressive drugs.

38 ematological or inflammatory conditions, and immunosuppressive drugs.

39 lograft rejection in the absence of systemic immunosuppressive drugs.

40 T-cell subsets with variable sensitivity to immunosuppressive drugs.

41 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) are well established immunosuppressive drugs.

42 induce tolerance, allowing for withdrawal of immunosuppressive drugs.

43 estioned how these processes are affected by immunosuppressive drugs.

44 ts and immune cells with or without GABA and immunosuppressive drugs.

45 Of 85 immunocompromised patients, 65 used immunosuppressive drugs, 13 had received stem cell trans

46 th steroids (97% versus 72%; P < 0.0001) and immunosuppressive drugs (66% versus 37%; P = 0.0001) was

47 The cytotoxic and immunosuppressive drugs administered pretransplant to el

48 /or exacerbating flares of IBD and/or IBD or immunosuppressive drugs administered to patients with IB

49 parate allograft survival without continuous immunosuppressive drug administration.

50 Data on how different immunosuppressive drugs affect cytomegalovirus (CMV)-spe

51 Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are essential immunosuppressive drugs after renal transplantation.

52 ribute to the various unexplained effects of immunosuppressive drugs already being used in the clinic

53 the disease generally can be controlled with immunosuppressive drugs, ANCA-associated vasculitis has

54 ble allograft function while taking a single immunosuppressive drug and no evidence of acute or chron

55 te kidney graft loss despite improvements in immunosuppressive drugs and a reduction in acute T cell-

56 Improvements in immunosuppressive drugs and ancillary care have led to o

57 ids (GC) are widely used as antiinflammatory/immunosuppressive drugs and antitumor agents in several

58 Future efforts to withdraw immunosuppressive drugs and establish a tolerant state w

59 riteria, improved surgical techniques, novel immunosuppressive drugs and protocols, new rejection sur

60 The long-term risks of most immunosuppressive drugs and the risk of relapse after di

61 recipients, partly because of the effects of immunosuppressive drugs, and are associated with adverse

62 , serum creatinine, lipids, trough levels of immunosuppressive drugs, and daily proteinuria were also

63 all memory B cell subpopulations, number of immunosuppressive drugs, and dose of tacrolimus during t

64 w donors at least 6 months after HCT without immunosuppressive drugs, and grafts in 4 dogs are surviv

65 ogic agents, including several commonly used immunosuppressive drugs, and specific anti-inflammatory

66 us of Janus kinase inhibitors-a new class of immunosuppressive drugs-and the advantages and disadvant

67 results from clinical trials using different immunosuppressive drugs; and (iii) describe our efforts

68 FTY720, an immunosuppressive drug approved for the treatment of mul

69 ited immune deficiencies as well as those on immunosuppressive drugs are at high risk for infections

70 Generic immunosuppressive drugs are available in Europe, Canada,

71 In addition, many of the immunosuppressive drugs are diabetogenic.

72 AI) diseases are difficult to treat, because immunosuppressive drugs are nonspecific, produce high le

73 The registration criteria for generic immunosuppressive drugs are often criticized.

74 Combinations of immunosuppressive drugs are routinely used post-transpla

75 stem in patients treated with new generation immunosuppressive drugs are still poorly documented.

76 High-dose steroids or other immunosuppressive drugs are used to treat GVHD that have

77 hout the potentially confounding variable of immunosuppressive drugs, are in agreement with the major

78 nsplant neutropenia (PTN), mainly related to immunosuppressive drugs as mycophenolic acid (MPA) and a

79 with stable graft function who are receiving immunosuppressive drugs as well as healthy controls.

80 se in almost all patients without additional immunosuppressive drugs, as seen in the Study of Thymogl

81 record and a Medicare pharmacy claim for an immunosuppressive drug at transplant discharge and 6 mo

82 Data regarding patient demographics, use of immunosuppressive drugs, biologic agents, and reason for

83 udies have indicated that the use of certain immunosuppressive drugs can delay the reconstitution of

84 mmune system via lymphocyte depletion and/or immunosuppressive drugs can have off-target effects, a l

85 nto DNA by one of the most widely prescribed immunosuppressive drugs, causes DNA single- and double-s

86 operational tolerance, defined as successful immunosuppressive drug cessation maintained for at least

87 Despite the use of immunosuppressive drugs, chronic allograft rejection rem

88 hich was the major influence for each of the immunosuppressive drug combinations described.

89 Monitoring of creatinine and immunosuppressive drug concentrations, such as tacrolimu

90 Discontinuation of immunosuppressive drugs could lessen this burden, but th

91 Rapamycin is an immunosuppressive drug currently used in different clini

92 ome of the most potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs currently in clinical use.

93 The widely used immunosuppressive drug cyclosporin A (CsA) inhibited DAF

94 two groups based on their sensitivity to the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporin A (CsA).

95 ies a binding pocket on PP2B utilized by the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporin.

96 ent to identify yeast protein targets of the immunosuppressive drug, cyclosporin A (CsA).

97 of the CA residue at G89 or P90 or with the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine (CsA), reduces HIV-1

98 The immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine A (CsA) and its noni

99 cis-trans isomerases and are targets of the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine A (CsA).

100 Treatment with the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine abolished H60-specif

101 dyl-prolyl isomerase (PPIase) that binds the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine.

102 reonine phosphatase that is inhibited by the immunosuppressive drugs cyclosporine and FK506.

103 We confirm that the immunosuppressive drugs cyclosporine and tacrolimus also

104 Nephrotoxicity side effect of the immunosuppressive drug, cyclosporine A (CsA), can be a m

105 e proteins mostly known as receptors for the immunosuppressive drug, cyclosporine A.

106 to evaluate the effects of two commonly used immunosuppressive drugs, cyclosporine A (CsA) and siroli

107 Although immunosuppressive drugs, cytokines, costimulatory molecu

108 Treatment at this stage with the immunosuppressive drug dexamethasone produced patent inf

109 M-MuLV-challenged mice were treated with the immunosuppressive drug dexamethasone, activation and exp

110 ive and memory CD4(+) T cells induced by the immunosuppressive drugs dexamethasone and vitamin D3.

111 achieving target blood concentrations of the immunosuppressive drugs during the critical early period

112 Eliminating the need for nephrotoxic immunosuppressive drugs during the early posttransplant

113 Since clinically approved immunosuppressive drugs (e.g., cyclosporin A, FK506) pos

114 Two score-type CEPs were defined for immunosuppressive drug efficacy (7 items) and for toxici

115 nd site of viral culture, types and doses of immunosuppressive drugs, episodes of rejection, histolog

116 Immunosuppressive drugs (especially corticosteroids and

117 ced major immune insults, particularly prior immunosuppressive drug exposure.

118 serologic response rates were high doses of immunosuppressive drugs, fewer hepatitis A vaccinations,

119 atient visits and number of months for which immunosuppressive drugs fills were recorded were similar

120 transiently blocks regeneration and that the immunosuppressive drug FK506 modestly enhances regenerat

121 cis/trans isomerases PPIases) that bind the immunosuppressive drug FK506.

122 tolerance to islet transplants without using immunosuppressive drugs for long terms.

123 ids that reduce inflammation and are used as immunosuppressive drugs for many diseases.

124 Large animals treated with immunosuppressive drugs for preclinical experiments of t

125 : systemic therapy (corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs) for at least 3 months before en

126 new sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor agonist immunosuppressive drug FTY720 leads to trapping of T cel

127 lymphoid organs and is downregulated by the immunosuppressive drug FTY720.

128 bitor, has been proposed as liver transplant immunosuppressive drug, gaining wide interest also for t

129 ulating immune ontogeny post-transplant, the immunosuppressive drugs given to prevent graft versus ho

130 d as all cases of new hyperglycemia, then no immunosuppressive drug group demonstrated an increased r

131 ry biliary cirrhosis (PBC) with conventional immunosuppressive drugs has been relatively disappointin

132 Complete cessation of immunosuppressive drugs has been successfully accomplish

133 arising from the interplay of the virus and immunosuppressive drugs, has emerged as a new challenge

134 se, neutropenic patients and those receiving immunosuppressive drugs have a higher incidence of invas

135 Immunosuppressive drugs have become the gold standard fo

136 ddition to ischemia and immunologic factors, immunosuppressive drugs have been suggested as a possibl

137 These data indicate that immunosuppressive drugs have differential effects on NK

138 main the standard of care in such cases, but immunosuppressive drugs have proved steroid-sparing in m

139 estinal tract (GI) for which treatments with immunosuppressive drugs have significant side-effects.

140 courses at modest doses before the standard immunosuppressive drugs have taken effect.

141 s, together with more judicious use of other immunosuppressive drugs, have resulted in marked improve

142 By minimizing the use of immunosuppressive drugs, higher risk patients may hazard

143 in 2011, the first approval of a maintenance immunosuppressive drug in more than a decade.

144 ted with mycophenolate mofetil, a newly used immunosuppressive drug in systemic lupus erythematosus,

145 nhibitor, rapamycin, is currently used as an immunosuppressive drug in transplant patients, it has be

146 en generic and brand-name formulations of an immunosuppressive drug in transplant recipients.

147 ens included systemic corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressive drugs in 44% of patients, and 84% of p

148 organ transplantation and can act as potent immunosuppressive drugs in a variety of different disord

149 The pharmacokinetics (PK) studies of immunosuppressive drugs in healthy volunteers, rarely, i

150 GO) guidelines recommend limiting the use of immunosuppressive drugs in idiopathic membranous nephrop

151 elp clinicians customize the prescription of immunosuppressive drugs in individual patients but also

152 neurin inhibitors are the most commonly used immunosuppressive drugs in liver transplantation, but th

153 The contribution of disease activity and immunosuppressive drugs in lymphoma development is still

154 The use of immunosuppressive drugs in models of chronic rejection m

155 tration of generic drugs in general, and for immunosuppressive drugs in particular.

156 ence studies comparing original with generic immunosuppressive drugs in patients are limited, especia

157 re instituted, caution in the use of generic immunosuppressive drugs in solid organ transplantation i

158 The scale of benefit of immunosuppressive drugs in suppressing clinical nephriti

159 rovide a rationale for the increasing use of immunosuppressive drugs in the treatment of MS.

160 demonstrated by the lack of effectiveness of immunosuppressive drugs in this model.

161 The wide use of antibiotics and immunosuppressive drugs in transplanted patients can hav

162 reted soluble factor(s), (and in presence of immunosuppressive drugs in vivo) thereby preventing over

163 Immunophilins are defined as receptors for immunosuppressive drugs including cyclosporin A, FK506,

164 ucous membrane pemphigoid typically involves immunosuppressive drugs, including biologic therapy, as

165 Posttransplant immunosuppressive drugs incompletely control GVHD and in

166 Our results confirm an earlier report that immunosuppressive drugs inhibit exocytosis in CTLs stimu

167 provide new understanding of how widely used immunosuppressive drugs interfere with essential process

168 esign guidelines on how to implement generic immunosuppressive drugs into clinical practice.

169 transplantation tolerance in the absence of immunosuppressive drugs is a rarely achieved goal.

170 Lack of adherence to immunosuppressive drugs is a risk factor for development

171 e tolerance to allografts so that the use of immunosuppressive drugs is avoided.

172 ction to permit minimization or cessation of immunosuppressive drugs is one of the key research goals

173 nhibition of these lytic immune responses by immunosuppressive drugs is unknown.

174 with prednisone alone or in combination with immunosuppressive drugs is usually successful, severe as

175 ical therapy with tacrolimus, an anti-T-cell immunosuppressive drug, is highly effective in preventin

176 e of donor grafts, with the need for minimal immunosuppressive drugs, is a major transplantation goal

177 ry ligand of cyclophilin A, is a widely used immunosuppressive drug, it causes arterial hypertension

178 e two recently reported alternate targets of immunosuppressive drugs, JNK is not required for lytic g

179 Despite the effectiveness of immunosuppressive drugs, kidney transplant recipients st

180 ear in allogeneic recipients who remained on immunosuppressive drugs led to a further reduction in VZ

181 ver, nonadherence is the main determinant of immunosuppressive drug level variability.

182 e loss of tolerance, as can be achieved with immunosuppressive drugs like cyclosporin, arrests the di

183 Patients taking immunosuppressive drugs, like cyclosporine A (CsA), that

184 Treatment with immunosuppressive drugs lowered the risk of visual loss.

185 that some liver recipients who cease taking immunosuppressive drugs maintain allograft function, sug

186 Organ recipients receiving immunosuppressive drugs may be at high risk for severe d

187 Immunosuppressive drugs may be required to treat severe

188 hyperparathyroidism, hypovitaminosis D, and immunosuppressive drugs may have influenced osteoblast f

189 Prior investigations suggest that systemic immunosuppressive drugs may improve insulin resistance a

190 acuity or those treated with steroid-sparing immunosuppressive drugs more often had an underlying ass

191 The immunosuppressive drug mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is us

192 ngus Penicillium brevicompactum produces the immunosuppressive drug mycophenolic acid (MPA), which is

193 ast 1 year or longer if patients remained on immunosuppressive drugs (n = 586).

194 Conventional regimens of immunosuppressive drugs often do not prevent chronic rej

195 tro effects of individual standard and novel immunosuppressive drugs on a broad range of CMV-specific

196 rview of the molecular effect of the various immunosuppressive drugs on B cell biology.

197 port the hypothesis that toxicity of certain immunosuppressive drugs on beta-cell function plays a ro

198 all, our data point to a limited efficacy of immunosuppressive drugs on CD8+ T cell-mediated and NK c

199 Although the effects of various immunosuppressive drugs on T cells and B cells have been

200 The impact of novel, rapamycin-related immunosuppressive drugs on the pathogenesis of PTLDs rem

201 We investigated the impact of immunosuppressive drugs on the prevalence of BKV replica

202 ributing to this poor success is toxicity of immunosuppressive drugs on transplanted islets.

203 arding the influence of current and emerging immunosuppressive drugs on Treg homeostasis, stability,

204 of cyclosporine or tacrolimus, the principal immunosuppressive drugs, on Treg proliferation and funct

205 who remain asymptomatic unless they receive immunosuppressive drugs or acquire infections that cause

206 ons between anti-CD45RB mAb and conventional immunosuppressive drugs or costimulatory blockade of the

207 , whereas 8 and 13 patients received various immunosuppressive drugs or symptomatic measures alone, r

208 Immunosuppressive drugs other than cyclosporine demonstr

209 ory celiac disease resistant to steroids and immunosuppressive drugs presented to our hospital for a

210 The Tor kinases are the targets of the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin and couple nutrient ava

211 The immunosuppressive drug rapamycin has been shown to prefe

212 on, and in contrast to what we expected, the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin has immunostimulatory e

213 The immunosuppressive drug rapamycin inhibits cell cycle pro

214 sis confirmed that inhibition of mTOR by the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin suppressed antiviral an

215 Only mTORC1 is directly inhibited by the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin.

216 he CsA-resistant pathway is sensitive to the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin.

217 e ternary complex formed with FKBP12 and the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin; however, there are sig

218 Finally, we show that immunosuppressive drug regimens can mitigate the anti-hE

219 Non-HIV-infected individuals taking immunosuppressive drug regimens targeting T cell activat

220 T1D) such as shortage of donor cells, use of immunosuppressive drugs remain as major challenges.

221 Immunosuppressive drugs required to prevent allograft re

222 natures (for HDAC inhibitors, estrogens, and immunosuppressive drugs, respectively).

223 Whether new immunosuppressive drugs result in an improved health-rel

224 iple cadaveric donors simultaneously receive immunosuppressive drugs - results in lymphopenia that is

225 in, providing further rationale for why this immunosuppressive drug should be used in conjunction wit

226 The new immunosuppressive drugs should undergo clinical trial be

227 The immunosuppressive drugs significantly increased expressi

228 All immunosuppressive drugs significantly inhibited TEC-indu

229 nd safety are not known; consequently, older immunosuppressive drugs still play an important role in

230 The ability to bind immunosuppressive drugs such as cyclosporin and FK506 de

231 the mechanism of action of several existing immunosuppressive drugs, such as calcineurin inhibitors

232 There was no correlation between immunosuppressive drug (tacrolimus) dose or trough level

233 This increased risk is linked to the immunosuppressive drugs taken by these patients to modul

234 We investigated the effect of immunosuppressive drugs targeting this pathway, the JAK

235 Rapamycin (Rapa), an immunosuppressive drug that acts through mammalian targe

236 binding "classical" anti-CD3 mAb is a potent immunosuppressive drug that alters CD4(+) and CD8(+) T c

237 Rapamycin is an immunosuppressive drug that binds simultaneously to the

238 We found here that rapamycin, an immunosuppressive drug that inhibits the kinase mTOR, pr

239 Tacrolimus is a widely used immunosuppressive drug that inhibits the phosphatase cal

240 Cyclosporine is an immunosuppressive drug that is widely used to prevent or

241 The immunosuppressive drugs that are administered to graft r

242 Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are immunosuppressive drugs that are used widely to prevent

243 therefore represent a therapeutic target of immunosuppressive drugs that could specifically dampen l

244 after HCT requiring continued treatment with immunosuppressive drugs that increases their risks for s

245 rt has been devoted to the identification of immunosuppressive drugs that promote bone formation in a

246 re is the need for chronic administration of immunosuppressive drugs that, among other side effects,

247 s undermined by variables such as the use of immunosuppressive drugs, their toxicity to the graft, de

248 ation (HBVr) is an important complication of immunosuppressive drug therapy (ISDT).

249 llars to provide full coverage for life-long immunosuppressive drug therapy after renal transplantati

250 Receiving immunosuppressive drug therapy at the time of presentati

251 In contrast, use of immunosuppressive drug therapy did not increase such ris

252 Given the large numbers of individuals on immunosuppressive drug therapy for inflammatory disease,

253 Immunosuppressive drug therapy has been identified as on

254 However, additional immunosuppressive drug therapy is required to prevent re

255 Immunosuppressive drug therapy lowered the risk of visua

256 Immunosuppressive drug therapy-induced impairment of the

257 ameliorated by stem-cell transplantation or immunosuppressive drug therapy.

258 h human immunodeficiency virus or AIDS or on immunosuppressive drug therapy.

259 for addition of steroids or other adjunctive immunosuppressive drugs to CsA monotherapy.

260 er, require the continuous administration of immunosuppressive drugs to prevent graft rejection, and

261 er with knowledge on the capacity of current immunosuppressive drugs to target this process, may open

262 Death related to graft loss or immunosuppressive drug toxicity was attributed a maximum

263 the lack of autoimmunity, alloimmunity, and immunosuppressive drug toxicity, highlighting the potent

264 s is limited by long-term graft dysfunction, immunosuppressive drug toxicity, need for multiple donor

265 s in a patient with a history of a long-term immunosuppressive drug treatment due to kidney transplan

266 Immunosuppressive drug treatment or enhancement of regul

267 e of KS in association with HIV infection or immunosuppressive-drug treatment after transplantation.

268 The effects of these immunosuppressive drugs, Treg cells, or both also were t

269 centers on three continents were the largest immunosuppressive drug trials ever attempted and the fir

270 In spite of maintenance treatment with immunosuppressive drugs, tubulitis still occurs and can

271 Immunosuppressive drug use has changed little, except fo

272 topical corticosteroid use, and concomitant immunosuppressive drug use.

273 Sirolimus (rapamycin) is an immunosuppressive drug used in transplantation.

274 rovides valuable insight into the effects of immunosuppressive drugs used after HSCT on resting and a

275 The immunosuppressive drugs used for treating mucous membran

276 of the safety concerns related to the use of immunosuppressive drugs used in inflammatory bowel disea

277 s (antithymocyte globulin [ATG]) are popular immunosuppressive drugs used to prevent or treat organ o

278 The oral immunosuppressive drugs used were mycophenolate and cycl

279 Immunosuppressive drugs used were tacrolimus (a calcineu

280 Use of immunosuppressive drugs was associated with a reduced ri

281 th increased risk of vision loss, and use of immunosuppressive drugs was associated with reduced risk

282 Mycophenolic acid (MPA), an immunosuppressive drug, was found to potently inhibit en

283 cipients (TOL), those undergoing prospective immunosuppressive drug weaning (PW) or maintenance immun

284 s: operationally tolerant (TOL), prospective immunosuppressive drug weaning, and maintenance immunosu

285 Many immunosuppressive drugs were developed before the identi

286 No drug-drug interactions with immunosuppressive drugs were reported, and no episode of

287 tment for autoimmune diseases often includes immunosuppressive drugs whereas neutralization of IL-1be

288 Cyclosporine A (CsA) is an immunosuppressive drug which has been widely used to pre

289 treatments for autoimmune arthritis rely on immunosuppressive drugs, which have side effects.

290 gely based on the use of systemically acting immunosuppressive drugs, which invariably cause severe s

291 significant potential of subglutinol A as an immunosuppressive drug with dose-dependent osteogenic ac

292 strong basis for future targeted delivery of immunosuppressive drugs with improved efficiency and red

293 his ADC may lead to a new class of selective immunosuppressive drugs with improved safety and extend

294 human populations, as a result of the use of immunosuppressive drugs with organ transplants and the s

295 ized, controlled trial to compare adjunctive immunosuppressive drugs with prednisone alone.

296 man transplant recipients remain tethered to immunosuppressive drugs with rare exceptions.

297 pients enrolled in a prospective multicenter immunosuppressive drug withdrawal clinical trial.

298 tolerance induction protocols with complete immunosuppressive drug withdrawal have been tested in hu

299 imary endpoint was freedom from all systemic immunosuppressive drugs without resumption up to 12 mont

300 s (GCs) have been used for more than 50 y as immunosuppressive drugs, yet their efficacy in macrophag