ライフサイエンスコーパス: intent-to-treat population

1 t was preceded by a 30-day washout (modified intent-to-treat population).

2 zed: placebo, n = 360; lifitegrast, n = 358 (intent-to-treat population).

3 : 1.1% versus 1.8% with placebo (P=0.061 for intent-to-treat population).

4 rmed using a stratified log-rank test in the intent-to-treat population.

5 model for repeated measures on the modified intent-to-treat population.

6 n the area of erythema at 48-72 hours in the intent-to-treat population.

7 Analysis was conducted with an intent-to-treat population.

8 Analysis was by intent-to-treat population.

9 ety population, and 307 were included in the intent-to-treat population.

10 Efficacy analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population.

11 ults reached trend-level significance in the intent-to-treat population.

12 overall survival (OS) were analyzed for the intent-to-treat population.

13 127 sham-treated subjects were in the year 1 intent-to-treat population.

14 The primary study comparison was done in the intent-to-treat population.

15 cy and safety analyses were performed on the intent-to-treat population.

16 complete response rate) was achieved in the intent-to-treat population.

17 e rate of 9.2% (10 partial responses) in the intent-to-treat population.

18 seline efficacy assessment and comprised the intent-to-treat population.

19 core for ADS-5102 vs placebo in the modified intent-to-treat population.

20 They comprised the intent-to-treat population.

21 were assessed in the completers and modified intent-to-treat populations.

22 421 (93.3%) of 451 patients in the original intent-to-treat population (143 tacrolimus/basiliximab [

23 rces, shock, and nonshock are similar to the intent-to-treat population, 19.4%.

24 cebo were free of body lice on day 14 in the intent-to-treat population (28% vs 9%; P = .04), with a

25 Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 414 (69.9%) received second-

26 In the intent-to-treat population, 48% reached the primary endp

27 for an objective response rate of 15% in the intent-to-treat population (95% confidence interval, 11%

28 Analysis of the modified intent-to-treat population (all 219 participants returni

29 la 2.5 versus 40.1% for IABP, P=0.227 in the intent-to-treat population and 34.3% versus 42.2%, P=0.0

30 ith IABP: 40.6% versus 49.3%, P=0.066 in the intent-to-treat population and 40.0% versus 51.0%, P=0.0

31 Analysis was by intent-to-treat population and performed in May 2013.

32 Analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat population, and health outcome measures

33 of this study was HIV seroconversion in the intent-to-treat population as estimated with Cox regress

34 were no significant differences in OR in the intent-to-treat population between patients receiving ta

35 In the intent-to-treat population, bexarotene given as third or

36 In the intent-to-treat population, both the median overall surv

37 The intent-to-treat population comprised 149 patients.

38 The intent-to-treat population comprised 157 patients.

39 The intent-to-treat population comprised 571 patients (141 i

40 The intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from t

41 Primary analyses were restricted to the intent-to-treat population eligible for CT (patients pro

42 180 randomly assigned patients comprised the intent-to-treat population evaluated for efficacy; 173 I

43 responses) after each treatment cycle in the intent-to-treat population every 4 weeks starting at wee

44 In the intent-to-treat population, fewer treatment failures (de

45 503 and 502 patients comprised the modified intent-to-treat population for oritavancin and vancomyci

46 received sunitinib and were included in the intent-to-treat population for safety analyses.

47 oderate disease and severe disease (n = 183, intent-to-treat population), improvements in CAL and PD

48 eened, and 126 were randomized; the modified intent-to-treat population included 121 patients (51 wom

49 The intent-to-treat population included 225 participants, of

50 The modified intent-to-treat population included 469 patients (451 bo

51 In the modified intent-to-treat population, including nonsurvivors, the

52 s were 71%, 74%, 77%, and 70%, respectively (intent-to-treat population, including protocol-defined p

53 the primary and secondary end points in the intent-to-treat population (ITT).

54 with PD 4 to 6 mm and > or = 7 mm (N = 209, intent-to-treat population), mean improvements in CAL an

55 In the intent-to-treat population, mean TNSS score for the subl

56 In the intent-to-treat population, median survival time was 7.7

57 In the intent to treat population (n = 36), median time to dise

58 In the intent-to-treat population (n = 1,810) at Week 24 for tr

59 In the intent-to-treat population (N = 296) who received a medi

60 The intent-to-treat population (N = 312) included treatment-

61 The overall response rate for the intent-to-treat population (n = 51) was 67% (26% complet

62 all pathologic complete response rate in the intent-to-treat population (n = 80) was 36% (90% CI, 27

63 Overall objective response in the intent-to-treat population (n = 93) was 33% (CR 2%, PR 3

64 The response rate in the primary intent-to-treat population (n=122) was 58% (36/62) in gr

65 f twice-daily treatment with either placebo (intent to treat population, n = 130), 4 mg NM-702 (n = 1

66 In the intent-to-treat population, no significant difference in

67 In the intent-to-treat population, objective responses (partial

68 An intent-to-treat population of 613 acute ischemic stroke

69 In the intent-to-treat population of patients with ARDS, treatm

70 Among 671 patients who constituted the intent-to-treat population, overall success rates were a

71 eater than those for control subjects in the intent-to-treat population (P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, res

72 In the intent-to-treat population, pravastatin (80 mg/day) sign

73 In the intent-to-treat population (ruxolitinib, n = 64; placebo

74 d point was progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat population (significance threshold of .0

75 eplanned sensitivity analyses, including the intent-to-treat population, statistically favored pazopa

76 In the intent-to-treat population, survival (primary end point)

77 For treated patients across all cohorts (intent-to-treat population), the response rate was also

78 In the intent-to-treat population, the median PFS was 2.8 month

79 In the intent-to-treat population, the ORR was 50%, including c

80 For the microbiological intent-to-treat population, the rates of clinical cure a

81 In a modified intent-to-treat population, there were no differences be

82 Data were analyzed for the intent-to-treat population using mixed-effects models, s

83 Median PFS in the unselected intent-to-treat population was 3.75 months with seribant

84 Median progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat population was 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.9-8

85 Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 8.8 months in arm A and 8

86 The intent-to-treat population was the a priori analysis pop

87 Results in the intent-to-treat population were similar.

88 er of discontinuations, the per-protocol and intent-to-treat populations were used for the primary ef

89 We assessed efficacy in the intent-to-treat population, which consisted of all patie

90 ], although a sensitivity analysis, using an intent-to-treat population with the last CD4 cell count

91 ed twenty-nine patients were included in the intent-to-treat population, with 312 meeting all criteri

92 three patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat population, with 396 meeting all criteri