ライフサイエンスコーパス: immunosuppressive therapy

1 on, thereby encouraging prompt initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

2 serum PLA2R antibodies who had not received immunosuppressive therapy.

3 aplastic anemia remain pancytopenic despite immunosuppressive therapy.

4 r of which may be particularly refractory to immunosuppressive therapy.

5 nt, which, in this series, required systemic immunosuppressive therapy.

6 intervention with ribavirin or alteration in immunosuppressive therapy.

7 standing of this entity in the era of modern immunosuppressive therapy.

8 e receiving conventional doses of first-line immunosuppressive therapy.

9 oping PTLD without the need for reduction in immunosuppressive therapy.

10 iopsy findings are reliable after initiating immunosuppressive therapy.

11 clinical practice and determine the need for immunosuppressive therapy.

12 higher disease activity and a more intensive immunosuppressive therapy.

13 r the withdrawal, or during the tapering, of immunosuppressive therapy.

14 to influence positively even under systemic immunosuppressive therapy.

15 ll patients received and failed conventional immunosuppressive therapy.

16 mitations of IGRAs in the setting of chronic immunosuppressive therapy.

17 of islet morphology and function without any immunosuppressive therapy.

18 d with intrinsic risk factors and concurrent immunosuppressive therapy.

19 d in transplant patients taking rapamycin as immunosuppressive therapy.

20 n alpha-N-acetylglucosaminidase (NAGLU) plus immunosuppressive therapy.

21 nerate tumors, especially in the presence of immunosuppressive therapy.

22 d in patients with AIE who receive long-term immunosuppressive therapy.

23 -M2 antibodies they decrease during UDCA and immunosuppressive therapy.

24 fractory celiac disease that is sensitive to immunosuppressive therapy.

25 hibitor induced carcinoma, a complication of immunosuppressive therapy.

26 with a poor prognosis and modest response to immunosuppressive therapy.

27 prior statin use and should be treated with immunosuppressive therapy.

28 mmon and major problem in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy.

29 ors or erythropoietin, or discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy.

30 is important, as these patients may require immunosuppressive therapy.

31 equired chronic glucocorticosteroid or other immunosuppressive therapy.

32 ow individual tailoring of potentially toxic immunosuppressive therapy.

33 limited by the lack of information regarding immunosuppressive therapy.

34 se disease has failed to respond to standard immunosuppressive therapy.

35 lem and is thought to be secondary to potent immunosuppressive therapy.

36 immunodeficiency states or who are receiving immunosuppressive therapy.

37 MHC mismatch and in the absence of continued immunosuppressive therapy.

38 temic autoimmunity and allowed evaluation of immunosuppressive therapy.

39 BKV infection when treated with reduction in immunosuppressive therapy.

40 inical data hampers the optimal selection of immunosuppressive therapy.

41 s IL-14 transcript levels are not reduced by immunosuppressive therapy.

42 fluence on graft survival, without continued immunosuppressive therapy.

43 All baboons were treated with chronic immunosuppressive therapy.

44 mmation necessitating corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy.

45 peutic approach than the current practice of immunosuppressive therapy.

46 fections in the posttransplant period due to immunosuppressive therapy.

47 se many patients with the disease respond to immunosuppressive therapy.

48 gnosis of cancer and are often refractory to immunosuppressive therapy.

49 used to develop a new type of pro-tolerance immunosuppressive therapy.

50 r by age, underlying diagnosis, or amount of immunosuppressive therapy.

51 on the choice of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) immunosuppressive therapy.

52 n is similar to the risk with other types of immunosuppressive therapy.

53 ive stress, and inflammation associated with immunosuppressive therapy.

54 n, even though recipients undergo aggressive immunosuppressive therapy.

55 ffects AIDS patients and patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy.

56 is requiring systemic corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy.

57 ecessarily prompt the discontinuation of the immunosuppressive therapy.

58 ly tolerant patients and patients on regular immunosuppressive therapy.

59 P = .009) than those receiving conservative/immunosuppressive therapy.

60 ade (RASB) compared with individuals without immunosuppressive therapy.

61 a target for development of organ-selective immunosuppressive therapies.

62 clinical syndrome was refractory to multiple immunosuppressive therapies.

63 ccurred in 50% of patients treated with mild immunosuppressive therapies.

64 osporin A (CsA) or FK506 is a cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapies.

65 mplications for the development of localized immunosuppressive therapies.

66 n of tissue pathology and may be amenable to immunosuppressive therapies.

67 more likely to be taking steroids and other immunosuppressive therapies.

68 ity from infectious diseases, independent of immunosuppressive therapies.

69 symptoms despite continued use of intensive immunosuppressive therapies.

70 presence of immunocompromising conditions or immunosuppressive therapies.

71 n important determinant of responsiveness to immunosuppressive therapies.

72 ients before they receive other, potentially immunosuppressive, therapies.

73 each given 2 weeks apart) nor withdrawal of immunosuppressive therapy (37 of 60 patients [62%]) infl

74 ion of prednisolone maintenance and/or other immunosuppressive therapy (50% versus 59%), steroid depe

75 ow-up (before transplant: 74.0+/-2.0; during immunosuppressive therapy: 75.4+/-2.8; and after withdra

76 cipients, it was possible to discontinue all immunosuppressive therapy 9 to 14 months after the trans

77 gic management is complicated by the risk of immunosuppressive therapy abrogating the antimalignancy

78 ng could be a useful tool in individualizing immunosuppressive therapy according to the risk of ACR o

79 Current immunosuppressive therapy after heart transplantation ei

80 rm graft survival that necessitates lifelong immunosuppressive therapy after renal transplant.

81 Tacrolimus (TAC), the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy after solid organ transplantat

82 Intensity of immunosuppressive therapies also influences the risk for

83 with cancer who undergo certain cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapies and have HBV infection or pr

84 r, or who have other conditions that require immunosuppressive therapies and/or solid organ or stem c

85 Before tocilizumab therapy, conventional immunosuppressive therapy and 1 or more biologic agents

86 ase series of patients treated with systemic immunosuppressive therapy and additional amniotic membra

87 interesting trend toward better responses of immunosuppressive therapy and an association with the pr

88 High-dose immunosuppressive therapy and autologous hematopoietic s

89 least two immunosuppressive therapies or one immunosuppressive therapy and chronic intravenous immuno

90 Chronic immunosuppressive therapy and control groups had similar

91 al systemic toxicities of corticosteroid and immunosuppressive therapy and death.

92 The latter include patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy and elderly subjects, particul

93 risk is related to intensity and duration of immunosuppressive therapy and inversely to recipient age

94 Less aggressive immunosuppressive therapy and lower average prednisone d

95 ethodologies also have direct application to immunosuppressive therapy and other immunosuppressive di

96 positive donor in this study received triple immunosuppressive therapy and prophylactic CMV treatment

97 o transplanted tissues with short courses of immunosuppressive therapy and that with regard to tolera

98 nor antibodies is taken to reflect effective immunosuppressive therapy and to predict a favorable out

99 vates in kidney transplant recipients during immunosuppressive therapy and triggers BKPyV-associated

100 ents with catastrophic APS also benefit from immunosuppressive therapy and/or plasma exchange, wherea

101 ission requiring escalation or resumption of immunosuppressive therapy), and deaths were recorded.

102 Altogether, 102 of the 110 patients received immunosuppressive therapy, and 56 received an intracardi

103 gnosis was associated with responsiveness to immunosuppressive therapy, and an elevated CD8(+) TSCM p

104 Organ histology, response to immunosuppressive therapy, and biochemical and immunolog

105 be treated with bone marrow transplantation, immunosuppressive therapy, and high-dose cyclophosphamid

106 All patients responded to immunosuppressive therapy, and many experienced a relaps

107 Vector was administered without immunosuppressive therapy, and participants were followe

108 nfections requiring more than 1 debridement, immunosuppressive therapy, and the exchange of removable

109 1A) rats were treated with a short course of immunosuppressive therapy (anti-alphabeta-TCR monoclonal

110 can move, and are affected by HIV infection, immunosuppressive therapies, antituberculosis treatments

111 e comprehensive understanding of how current immunosuppressive therapies applied to organ transplanta

112 Immunosuppressive therapies are effective, but reduced n

113 that patients with IED treated with systemic immunosuppressive therapy are at increased risk of malig

114 susceptibility to infection, and response to immunosuppressive therapy are influenced in part by his/

115 ge at the onset of first symptoms as well as immunosuppressive therapy are likely associated with mor

116 seroconstellation, HLA-DR7, and intensity of immunosuppressive therapy are significant risk factors f

117 sulting from HIV infection, chemotherapy, or immunosuppressive therapy, are the primary risk factors.

118 lowing antiretroviral therapy or reversal of immunosuppressive therapy, as the newly reconstituted im

119 Thirteen patients (43%) were receiving immunosuppressive therapy at the time of initiation of i

120 Only 5 patients were still undergoing immunosuppressive therapy at the time of last follow-up.

121 Although immunosuppressive therapy benefits some patients, trial

122 Adults with autoimmune disease treated with immunosuppressive therapy (biologic or nonbiologic) were

123 gy to avoid the side effects of conventional immunosuppressive therapies, but targeting CD28-mediated

124 network are investigated as drug targets for immunosuppressive therapy, but the selective action of S

125 ith hematologic malignancy, transplantation, immunosuppressive therapy (calcineurin inhibitors, antit

126 Immunosuppressive therapy can produce hematologic respon

127 dies to discuss whether mTOR inhibitor-based immunosuppressive therapy can reduce the magnitude of CM

128 urvival, once strongly linked to response to immunosuppressive therapy, can now be achieved even amon

129 Immunosuppressive therapy, chronic graft-versus-host dis

130 The effects of chronic immunosuppressive therapy (CIST) on long-term oncologic

131 imab-tacrolimus-mycophenolate-corticosteroid immunosuppressive therapy, CMV disease rates increased i

132 mune checkpoint inhibitors and initiation of immunosuppressive therapy, consisting of intravenous met

133 and an elevated CD8(+) TSCM population after immunosuppressive therapy correlated with treatment fail

134 Two lung transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy developed pruritic, brown plaq

135 Active disease or immunosuppressive therapy did not impair the assay perfo

136 in why patients receiving cyclosporine A for immunosuppressive therapy display excessive hair growth,

137 , steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (SAIDs), immunosuppressive therapy drugs (immunomodulatory therap

138 majority of patients will ultimately require immunosuppressive therapy due to symptomatic neutropenia

139 ti-HBs]) for "persons receiving cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapy (eg, chemotherapy for malignan

140 In the current immunosuppressive therapy era, vessel thrombosis is the

141 However, the required immunosuppressive therapy exposes patients to serious si

142 In more severe GVHD, prolonged exposure to immunosuppressive therapies, failure to achieve toleranc

143 rticipants were identified from the Systemic Immunosuppressive Therapy for Eye Diseases (SITE) cohort

144 Patients were identified from the Systemic Immunosuppressive Therapy for Eye Diseases Cohort Study.

145 BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Immunosuppressive therapy for inflammatory bowel disease

146 bleeding episodes and prompt institution of immunosuppressive therapy for long-term inhibitor eradic

147 ath, in a patient who was receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and w

148 was as effective as continuous conventional immunosuppressive therapy for the induction and maintena

149 In the Supportive Versus Immunosuppressive Therapy for the Treatment of Progressi

150 There are limited data on the safety of immunosuppressive therapy for these patients.

151 vailable therapy (maintenance or increase in immunosuppressive therapy) for HCV-associated cryoglobul

152 ned > 5 mug/L, the trough level used in oral immunosuppressive therapy, for (95% credible interval) 1

153 Chronic immunosuppressive therapy group had significantly lower

154 Beneficial clinical response to immunosuppressive therapies has been demonstrated which

155 olled trial, although the evidence for other immunosuppressive therapies has been derived mainly from

156 However, to date most randomized trials of immunosuppressive therapy have had acute rejection as th

157 ion of posttransplant alloantibodies despite immunosuppressive therapy have not been fully elucidated

158 A phase 2 single-arm study of high-dose immunosuppressive therapy (HDIT) and autologous CD34-sel

159 High-dose immunosuppressive therapy (HDIT) with autologous hematop

160 n that all patients undergoing chemotherapy, immunosuppressive therapy, hematopoietic stem cell trans

161 ring allows individualization of a patient's immunosuppressive therapy; however, drug levels alone ma

162 s and their colitis is resistant to standard immunosuppressive therapy, HSCT should be considered ear

163 Immunosuppressive therapies (ie, intravenous cyclophosph

164 Induction immunosuppressive therapy (if any) was available in 3/10

165 pportive-care group) or supportive care plus immunosuppressive therapy (immunosuppression group) for

166 t questions about the development and use of immunosuppressive therapies in AGS and related phenotype

167 tion, which may occur with a wide variety of immunosuppressive therapies in benign or malignant disea

168 of toxicities of systemic corticosteroid and immunosuppressive therapies in the trial.

169 We assessed the longitudinal requirement for immunosuppressive therapy in 339 patients treated with t

170 However it supports the immunosuppressive therapy in acute situations as in crit

171 There are anecdotal reports of immunosuppressive therapy in autoimmune retinopathy; how

172 should not be used as justification to delay immunosuppressive therapy in children with typical sympt

173 Although current immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipient

174 thway, allows for calcineurin-inhibitor free immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplantation but

175 to assess the clinical benefits of adjusting immunosuppressive therapy in liver recipients based on i

176 sregulation in MDS and summarize the role of immunosuppressive therapy in MDS.

177 t that Rtx might replace St-Cp as first-line immunosuppressive therapy in patients with idiopathic me

178 s represents a noninvasive way of monitoring immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant patients.

179 steroid-free regimens compared with a triple immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant recipients

180 risk of HBVr under different combinations of immunosuppressive therapy in rheumatic patients.

181 ng cell type for use as a cell-based adjunct immunosuppressive therapy in solid organ transplant reci

182 The clinical response to immunosuppressive therapy in suspected autoimmune enceph

183 rventions such as immunoglobulin therapy and immunosuppressive therapy in the care of the patient wit

184 ts with particular focus on the evidence for immunosuppressive therapy in these patients.

185 Available evidence to guide immunosuppressive therapy in this setting is limited but

186 T cell depletion has potential as a robust, immunosuppressive therapy in transplantation.

187 BcAb + HBsAg- NHL patients treated with mild immunosuppressive therapies, in order to detect an occul

188 r age, male sex, type of cardiomyopathy, and immunosuppressive therapy (including switch to mTOR inhi

189 s were undergoing varied mono or combination immunosuppressive therapy, including 36 who were receivi

190 Daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapies induce remission, but mortal

191 nd the clinical and radiological response to immunosuppressive therapies is consistent with an immune

192 Corticosteroid-based immunosuppressive therapy is effective in eliminating mo

193 oung adults with severe aplastic anemia, and immunosuppressive therapy is employed when hematopoietic

194 cyte syndrome, is waning because anti-B-cell immunosuppressive therapy is increasingly a component of

195 risk for chronic HBV infection or if highly immunosuppressive therapy is planned.

196 Following organ transplantation, lifelong immunosuppressive therapy is required to prevent the hos

197 id organ transplantation and improvements in immunosuppressive therapy is the reality that long-term

198 Immunosuppressive therapy is the standard of care for th

199 Group 1 (Gp1) (controls, n=6) received no immunosuppressive therapy (IS) and no graft.

200 NAC, without concurrent plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy, is effective in preventing an

201 Growth factors can be combined with immunosuppressive therapy (IST) and may improve response

202 etween specific Treg subsets and response to immunosuppressive therapy (IST) as well as their in vitr

203 defined as a lack of response to first-line immunosuppressive therapy (IST) with antithymocyte globu

204 ed pathophysiology in some patients, in whom immunosuppressive therapy (IST) with horse antithymocyte

205 for second line after failure to respond to immunosuppressive therapy (IST).

206 been widely reported in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy (IT); however, few data are av

207 Within 3 months, immunosuppressive therapy led to a sustained 81% reducti

208 r investigation into SPMs as alternatives to immunosuppressive therapies like steroids.

209 recalcitrant chronic itch that failed other immunosuppressive therapies markedly improve when treate

210 of anti-HLA IgG with FcMonoIgG may minimize immunosuppressive therapies, maximize the number of dono

211 Ultimately, immunosuppressive therapy may be only partially required

212 eactivation of hepatitis B in the context of immunosuppressive therapy may be severe and potentially

213 utcomes, uveitis patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy may experience a deterioration

214 lled with or were intolerant to conventional immunosuppressive therapy (median number, 3 [1-5]).

215 ease activity (proteinuria) in patients with immunosuppressive therapy (n=101) or supportive care (n=

216 ve care unit (ICU) admissions, active use of immunosuppressive therapy, neutropenia, or bacteremia du

217 aneously, but more typically is triggered by immunosuppressive therapy of cancer, autoimmune disease,

218 cade emerges as a promising new strategy for immunosuppressive therapy of large-vessel vasculitis.

219 atients, we analyzed the impact of EVR-based immunosuppressive therapy on CMV replication and disease

220 es, and previous treatment with at least two immunosuppressive therapies or one immunosuppressive the

221 ancytopenia, can be treated effectively with immunosuppressive therapy or allogeneic transplantation.

222 hich can be successfully treated with either immunosuppressive therapy or hematopoietic stem-cell tra

223 namely, the reduction or discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy or the switch from calcineurin

224 cancer who are about to receive cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapy or who are already receiving t

225 OR, 5.65; P < .05), and the intensity of the immunosuppressive therapy (OR, 1.53; P < .01) as indepen

226 1.11; 95% CI, 1.08-1.14; P = .0001), use of immunosuppressive therapy (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.18-2.44;

227 s that were subjected to diabetes induction, immunosuppressive therapy, or islet allotransplantation.

228 oaches are limited by the adverse effects of immunosuppressive therapy over the lifetime of the recip

229 Nineteen patients received immunosuppressive therapies: overall response (OR) was 4

230 rvival of islet allografts without any other immunosuppressive therapy (P=0.0003), and the protection

231 t or refractory (p=0.048) and need long-term immunosuppressive therapy (p=0.0213).

232 e transplanted into baboons that received no immunosuppressive therapy, partial regimens, or a full r

233 ransplant recipients complicates maintenance immunosuppressive therapy, particularly in patients with

234 s of HBV-infected persons, persons requiring immunosuppressive therapy, persons with end-stage renal

235 patients in a prospective phase 1-2 study of immunosuppressive therapy plus eltrombopag.

236 We addressed issues of immunosuppressive therapy, psychological and ethical out

237 enal function and were treated with the same immunosuppressive therapy, receiving a minimum dose of c

238 Immunosuppressive therapy remains an important treatment

239 The effect of immunosuppressive therapy remains speculative.

240 The intensive and prolonged immunosuppressive therapy required to prevent or treat g

241 d in candidate patients for chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy requires further investigation

242 Belatacept-based immunosuppressive therapy resulted in higher and more se

243 l Vasculitis who was treated with aggressive immunosuppressive therapy resulting in a favorable visua

244 The current immunosuppressive therapies showed limited success in ma

245 ith the use of an intensified posttransplant immunosuppressive therapy starting at day 0 combined wit

246 Various other immunosuppressive therapy studies have also reported suc

247 bidity and mortality in patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy, such as solid organ and hemat

248 ance between infectious risk and response to immunosuppressive therapy, such as that required for aut

249 tients with severe aplastic anemia receiving immunosuppressive therapy, telomere length was unrelated

250 Immunosuppressive therapies that block the CD40/CD154 co

251 nchiectasis, but also to avoid inappropriate immunosuppressive therapy that worsens the disease.

252 Despite advances in immunosuppressive therapies, the rate of chronic transpl

253 In patients not receiving active immunosuppressive therapy, the most likely culprits are

254 resection of the teratoma and treatment with immunosuppressive therapy, the patient progressed to a m

255 graft biopsies, obtained after withdrawal of immunosuppressive therapy, there were high levels of P3

256 With reduction in immunosuppressive therapy, three patients (13%) develope

257 or 6-12 months after discontinuation of such immunosuppressive therapies to protect against HBV react

258 otection, and the potential contributions of immunosuppressive therapies to tumor induction.

259 increased from 21% at the time of failure on immunosuppressive therapy to 68% by late PRA after weani

260 The addition of immunosuppressive therapy to intensive supportive care i

261 t approaches seek to limit administration of immunosuppressive therapy to patients at risk for life-t

262 and in kidney transplant patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy to prevent organ rejection.

263 Immunosuppressive therapies using calcineurin inhibitors

264 e results may have clinical implications for immunosuppressive therapy using calcineurin inhibitors.

265 A systemic immunosuppressive therapy was administered in all patien

266 rly or rituximab late, and glucocorticoid or immunosuppressive therapy was allowed at study entry.

267 The addition of eltrombopag to immunosuppressive therapy was associated with markedly h

268 Immunosuppressive therapy was recommended in cases of de

269 ted to be due to the underlying disease, and immunosuppressive therapy was scheduled.

270 Immunosuppressive therapy was similar in both groups.

271 Cyclosporine as the sole posttransplant immunosuppressive therapy was tapered and discontinued a

272 ariate repeated-measures model incorporating immunosuppressive therapy was utilized.

273 Immunosuppressive therapy was with conventional agents (

274 Immunosuppressive therapy was withdrawn in 37 of 60 pati

275 combination with cyclosporine, as first-line immunosuppressive therapy, was evaluated prospectively i

276 oderate/severe scleritis, requiring systemic immunosuppressive therapy, was present in 25 eyes (69%).

277 patients who received SRL-based maintenance immunosuppressive therapy were determined using polymera

278 In contrast, malignancy and immunosuppressive therapy were each assigned -1 point, o

279 Participants with a history of using immunosuppressive therapy were identified in clinics, an

280 The outcomes of immunosuppressive therapy, when added to supportive care

281 h SLE have been managed largely with empiric immunosuppressive therapies, which are associated with s

282 In total, 124 patients (49%) received immunosuppressive therapy, which predominantly consisted

283 as it would avoid the toxicities of chronic immunosuppressive therapies while preventing acute and c

284 erance would avoid the toxicities of chronic immunosuppressive therapies while preventing graft rejec

285 concurrent anti-TNF-alpha therapy and other immunosuppressive therapy while she was living in an are

286 Immunosuppressive therapy with antithymocyte globulin (A

287 of the extrinsic coagulation pathway during immunosuppressive therapy with ATG may have broader impl

288 , in addition to conventional posttransplant immunosuppressive therapy with cyclosporine, markedly at

289 Many younger patients who respond to immunosuppressive therapy with drugs such as antithymocy

290 We combined standard immunosuppressive therapy with eltrombopag in previously

291 Immunosuppressive therapy with mammalian target of rapam

292 Intensive immunosuppressive therapy with rituximab appears to be e

293 eatment groups (24/168 hr) received standard immunosuppressive therapy with tacrolimus.

294 cific inflammatory responses and complements immunosuppressive therapy with tacrolimus.

295 Immunosuppressive therapy, with cyclosporine, methotrexa

296 patients with aplastic anemia refractory to immunosuppressive therapy, with frequent multilineage re

297 ere observed among the patients who received immunosuppressive therapy, with no change in the rate of

298 Only 21% (3 of 14) received immunosuppressive therapy within 1 year before lung tran

299 ction off immunosuppression were returned to immunosuppressive therapy without evidence of rejection

300 ERT was resumed 8 weeks after starting immunosuppressive therapy without inducing a rebound of