ライフサイエンスコーパス: itraconazole

1 mphotericin B, flucytosine, fluconazole, and itraconazole).

2 ways to determine the mechanism of action of itraconazole.

3 o 1.6% for voriconazole, and 0.7 to 4.0% for itraconazole.

4 solates, most with reduced susceptibility to itraconazole.

5 effects resolved with the discontinuation of itraconazole.

6 ues with voriconazole and higher values with itraconazole.

7 found to be resistant to fluconazole than to itraconazole.

8 icantly lower rates of relapse and IRIS than itraconazole.

9 Cs were 97.6% for voriconazole and 95.8% for itraconazole.

10 patient was treated with a 6-month course of itraconazole.

11 the MICs of amphotericin B, fluconazole, and itraconazole.

12 ferences in susceptibility to fluconazole or itraconazole.

13 B, 5-fluorocytosine (5FC), fluconazole, and itraconazole.

14 6.6% of C. krusei isolates were resistant to itraconazole.

15 cessfully treated with a long-term course of itraconazole.

16 e patients received maintenance therapy with itraconazole.

17 nd VGIII MICs were lower for flucytosine and itraconazole.

18 were enrolled, of whom 19 were treated with itraconazole.

19 nts, such as amphotericin B, flucytosine, or itraconazole.

20 voriconazole (1 and 2 mug/ml, respectively), itraconazole (0.5 and 1 mug/ml), posaconazole (0.5 and 1

21 ol limits (amphotericin B, 1 to 4 microg/ml; itraconazole, 0.06 to 0.5 microg/ml; posaconazole, 0.03

22 The amphotericin B (2.0 microgram/ml) and itraconazole (1.0 microgram/ml) MICs for the organism we

23 gal agents such as ketoconazole (1.5 muM) or itraconazole (1.14 muM).

24 96.9%); voriconazole, 2 (99.4%); A. terreus, itraconazole, 1 (100%); posaconazole, 0.5 (99.7%); voric

25 (95%); voriconazole, 1 (98.1%); A. nidulans, itraconazole, 1 (95%); posaconazole, 1 (97.7%); voricona

26 n the ECV are in parentheses): A. fumigatus, itraconazole, 1 (98.8%); posaconazole, 0.5 (99.2%); vori

27 (99.2%); voriconazole, 1 (97.7%); A. flavus, itraconazole, 1 (99.6%); posaconazole, 0.25 (95%); voric

28 e 5-microg disk, voriconazole 1-microg disk, itraconazole 10-microg disk (for all except zygomycetes)

29 ), and (iii) seven disks (amphotericin B and itraconazole 10-microg disks, voriconazole 1- and 10-mic

30 tions were considered (posaconazole, 2.7% vs itraconazole, 10.7%, P= .02).

31 ricin B (0.2 mg/kg/day intraperitoneally) or itraconazole (100 mg/kg/day by oral gavage in two divide

32 ATCC MYA-3626, amphotericin B (18 to 25 mm), itraconazole (11 to 21 mm), posaconazole (28 to 35 mm),

33 ntended study period (fluconazole 16% versus itraconazole 13%, P =.46); however, fewer patients in th

34 and C. krusei, amphotericin B (18 to 27 mm), itraconazole (18 to 26 mm), posaconazole (28 to 38 mm),

35 (97.7%); voriconazole, 2 (99.3%); A. niger, itraconazole, 2 (100%); posaconazole, 0.5 (96.9%); voric

36 7%); voriconazole, 1 (99.1%); A. versicolor, itraconazole, 2 (100%); posaconazole, 1 (not applicable)

37 ATCC MYA-3630, amphotericin B (15 to 24 mm), itraconazole (20 to 31 mm), and posaconazole (33 to 43 m

38 re enrolled onto two cohorts to receive oral itraconazole 200 mg twice per day for 1 month (cohort A)

39 Itraconazole (200 mg intravenously every 12 hours for 2

40 Oral fluconazole, 400 mg/d, or itraconazole, 200 mg twice daily.

41 arrhea, or abdominal pain) in patients given itraconazole (24% vs. 9%; difference, 15 percentage poin

42 otection against IMI (fluconazole 12% versus itraconazole 5%, P =.03), but similar protection against

43 elated to fungal infection in patients given itraconazole (6 of 71 [9%]) than in patients given fluco

44 ped IFI on treatment (fluconazole 15% versus itraconazole 7%, P =.03).

45 ravuconazole (91%), voriconazole (90%), and itraconazole (79%).

46 for amphotericin B and ketoconazole, 85% for itraconazole, 80% for flucytosine, 77% for terconazole,

47 and voriconazole (93 to 97%) but lower with itraconazole (86 to 88%), due primarily to minor errors.

48 e) assessing EA at +/-2 dilutions and 99.6% (itraconazole), 87.7% (posaconazole), and 96.3% (voricona

49 0%]) followed by fluconazole (148 [29%]) and itraconazole (93 [18%]).

50 nt (EA) between methods was excellent: 100% (itraconazole), 98.4% (posaconazole), and 99.6% (voricona

51 holesterol export is reportedly inhibited by itraconazole, a triazole that is used as an antifungal d

52 Itraconazole, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved

53 n (mTOR) inhibition, two previously reported itraconazole activities, failed to recapitulate itracona

54 th those of amphotericin B, fluconazole, and itraconazole against 189 isolates of emerging and common

55 vide an update on the antifungal activity of itraconazole against major opportunistic fungal pathogen

56 an those of amphotericin B, fluconazole, and itraconazole against most species of yeasts tested.

57 eight than the control, paclitaxel-alone, or itraconazole-alone groups.

58 e established antifungal agents fluconazole, itraconazole, amphotericin B, and 5-fluorocytosine (5FC)

59 isolate was determined against fluconazole, itraconazole, amphotericin B, and flucytosine.

60 In contrast, exposure of Rhizopus oryzae to itraconazole, amphotericin B, or caspofungin and exposur

61 data from uncontrolled studies suggest that itraconazole, an orally administered antifungal agent, m

62 r studies demonstrated fungicidal effects of itraconazole and 25-thialanosterol towards sre1Delta and

63 s of the ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitors, itraconazole and 25-thialanosterol.

64 tablets against all mold isolates, 8-microg itraconazole and 5-microg tablets against all mold isola

65 Agreement ranged from 90% with itraconazole and 5FC to 96% with amphotericin B at 24 h

66 spp. at <or=1 microg/ml compared to 83% for itraconazole and 91% for amphotericin B.

67 Empirical therapy with itraconazole and amoxicillin-clavulanate failed to resol

68 ve, voriconazole, was compared with those of itraconazole and amphotericin B against 67 isolates of A

69 zole were similar to or better than those of itraconazole and amphotericin B against Aspergillus spp.

70 ssfully with posaconazole after therapy with itraconazole and amphotericin B lipid complex failed.

71 ower-growing Aspergillus terreus resulted in itraconazole and amphotericin B MIC(RSA)s at 16 h equal

72 Madurella grisea,which was resistant to both Itraconazole and Amphotericin B.

73 Itraconazole and arsenic trioxide, alone or in combinati

74 Here, we report that itraconazole and arsenic trioxide, two agents in clinica

75 to 27.0 percentage points]; P = 0.02), both itraconazole and fluconazole were well tolerated.

76 es a rationale for the therapeutic effect of itraconazole and implied that the therapeutic potential

77 Itraconazole and newer azole compounds were more active.

78 HeyA8, mice treated with the combination of itraconazole and paclitaxel had significantly decreased

79 ore, we evaluated the synergistic effects of itraconazole and paclitaxel using orthotopic mouse model

80 d treatment, each patient alternated between itraconazole and placebo annually.

81 Cross-resistance between itraconazole and posaconazole was seen for 53.5% of the

82 utions that confer reduced susceptibility to itraconazole and posaconazole.

83 fulvin, and fluconazole and less active than itraconazole and terbinafine.

84 e isolates, whereas cross-resistance between itraconazole and voriconazole was apparent in only 7% of

85 raised with the triazole antifungal agents, itraconazole and voriconazole, causing neuropathy.

86 passed the WT population of A. fumigatus for itraconazole and voriconazole, whereas an ECV of < or =

87 e between older azole drugs (fluconazole and itraconazole) and voriconazole.

88 d: 31 of them with potassium iodide, 16 with itraconazole, and 3 with a combination including potassi

89 ine the MICs of amphotericin B, fluconazole, itraconazole, and 5-flucytosine for all 106 isolates.

90 o treatment by amphotericin B lipid complex, itraconazole, and a craniotomy but later died from secon

91 bial prophylaxis consisted of cotrimoxazole, itraconazole, and aciclovir (or valganciclovir for asymp

92 c and fungicidal activities of voriconazole, itraconazole, and amphotericin B against 260 common and

93 n, posaconazole, voriconazole, ravuconazole, itraconazole, and amphotericin B against 448 recent clin

94 nd A. terreus to voriconazole, posaconazole, itraconazole, and amphotericin B by the E-test and NCCLS

95 ecies of ascomycetous fungi to voriconazole, itraconazole, and amphotericin B were tested by using a

96 of decreasing susceptibility to fluconazole, itraconazole, and amphotericin B with increasing patient

97 =1 microg/ml of ravuconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, and amphotericin B, respectively.

98 ent of tinea capitis, including terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole in this era of resistant o

99 as Aspergillus fumigatus to amphotericin B, itraconazole, and fluconazole, usually within 48 h.

100 th a combination including potassium iodide, itraconazole, and fluconazole.

101 of amphotericin B, fluconazole, flucytosine, itraconazole, and ketoconazole were determined by the co

102 The antifungal azoles, posaconazole, itraconazole, and ketoconazole, significantly inhibited

103 in products and corticosteroids, followed by itraconazole, and made a full recovery.

104 ly (fluconazole, voriconazole, ketoconazole, itraconazole, and posaconazole) and topically (miconazol

105 In contrast, with amphotericin B, itraconazole, and posaconazole, E-test results were more

106 various azole drugs, including voriconazole, itraconazole, and posaconazole.

107 dermatophytes to fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, and terbinafine.

108 e compared the activities of amphotericin B, itraconazole, and voriconazole against clinical Aspergil

109 The mode MICs of fluconazole, itraconazole, and voriconazole for these isolates were >

110 o determine susceptibilities to fluconazole, itraconazole, and voriconazole, and molecular relatednes

111 to amphotericin B, caspofungin, fluconazole, itraconazole, and voriconazole.

112 sting with amphotericin B, voriconazole, and itraconazole; and molecular typing with random amplifica

113 Arsenic trioxide and itraconazole antagonize the hedgehog (HH) pathway at sit

114 Itraconazole appears to prevent IMI in the subset of pat

115 Flucytosine and itraconazole are the only antifungal agents for which th

116 More patients in the itraconazole arm developed hepatotoxicities, and more pa

117 13%, P =.46); however, fewer patients in the itraconazole arm developed IFI on treatment (fluconazole

118 e are four active clinical trials evaluating itraconazole as a cancer therapeutic.

119 feration identified the oral antifungal drug itraconazole as a novel agent with potential antiangioge

120 Amphotericin was superior to itraconazole as initial treatment for talaromycosis with

121 We assessed the efficacy of itraconazole as prophylaxis against serious fungal infec

122 infections responded twice as frequently to itraconazole as to fluconazole.

123 d a serious fungal infection while receiving itraconazole, as compared with seven who had a serious f

124 trend toward slightly greater efficacy with itraconazole at the doses studied.

125 es, and more patients were discontinued from itraconazole because of toxicities or gastrointestinal (

126 muM), whereas ketoconazole, clotrimazole and itraconazole bound strongest to CYP5218 (Kd ~1.6, 0.5 an

127 No patient receiving itraconazole but five patients receiving placebo had a s

128 Cross-linking was inhibited by itraconazole but not by ketoconazole, an imidazole that

129 Inhibition of mTOR by itraconazole but not rapamycin can be partially restored

130 ystem, cross-linking of P-X was inhibited by itraconazole, but not by U18666A.

131 For all drugs except itraconazole, C. gattii isolates exhibited a wider range

132 he lysosome and inhibition of mTOR caused by itraconazole can be reversed by thapsigarin.

133 nchopulmonary aspergillosis, the addition of itraconazole can lead to improvement in the condition wi

134 0 mg per kilogram of body weight per day, or itraconazole capsules (221 patients), at a dose of 600 m

135 n B, flucytosine, fluconazole, ketoconazole, itraconazole, clotrimazole, miconazole, and terconazole)

136 ure to toxic metabolites among recipients of itraconazole compared with fluconazole.

137 with highest values in patients who received itraconazole concurrent with cyclophosphamide (CY) condi

138 Itraconazole consistently showed potent, specific, and d

139 ency and eventually continued treatment with itraconazole cyclodextrin, 100 mg twice daily.

140 Patients who received itraconazole developed higher serum bilirubin and creati

141 Prophylactic treatment with oral itraconazole did not prevent or cure the infection.

142 nded to fluconazole and 72% had responded to itraconazole (difference, 15 percentage points [CI, 0.00

143 e triazole antifungal agents fluconazole and itraconazole, drugs used in treatment of topical and sys

144 duration to measure the clinical efficacy of itraconazole, especially relative to other HH pathway in

145 for Aspergillus spp., the agreement between itraconazole Etest MICs read at 24 h and reference micro

146 ess susceptible than C. glabrata isolates to itraconazole, fluconazole, and voriconazole and to have

147 o, the relative activities of isavuconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole, a

148 ent was treated with amphotericin B and oral itraconazole, followed by maintenance therapy with fluco

149 The patient was treated with itraconazole for approximately 5 months and then died se

150 Similar results were observed with itraconazole for seven of the eight species evaluated (2

151 red to melt-quench amorphous and crystalline itraconazole formulations.

152 In contrast, amphotericin B and itraconazole G mean MFCs for R. arrhizus were 2.1 to 2.2

153 We also demonstrated that itraconazole globally reduced poly-N-acetyllactosamine a

154 e were responses in 13 of 28 patients in the itraconazole group (46 percent), as compared with 5 of 2

155 5% in the amphotericin group and 7.4% in the itraconazole group (absolute risk difference, 0.9 percen

156 % in the amphotericin group and 21.0% in the itraconazole group (absolute risk difference, 9.7 percen

157 ilar in each group (32 of 71 patients in the itraconazole group [45%] vs. 28 of 67 patients in the fl

158 omagnesemia, and anemia than patients in the itraconazole group.

159 or = 8 microg/ml (relative risk [RR] = 8.9); itraconazole, > or =1 microg/ml (RR = 10).

160 Itraconazole has anti-BCC activity in humans.

161 Taken together, these data suggest that itraconazole has potent and selective inhibitory activit

162 resent; antifungals such as ketoconazole and itraconazole have been used but are unable to eradicate

163 decreased susceptibility to fluconazole and itraconazole, high susceptibility to voriconazole, and l

164 Fluconazole (FL), itraconazole (I), voriconazole (V), posaconazole (P), fl

165 ve found that incubation of macrophages with itraconazole (ICZ), an azole antifungal commonly used in

166 ngal prophylaxis (AFP) with posaconazole and itraconazole in a real-life setting of patients with acu

167 Resistance to itraconazole in A. fumigatus is closely linked to amino

168 cytotoxic therapy with or without daily oral itraconazole in patients with recurrent metastatic NSCLC

169 antiangiogenic and anticancer activities of itraconazole in relevant preclinical models of angiogene

170 Itraconazole inhibited 94% of C. krusei and 84% of other

171 Itraconazole (intravenous 200 mg daily, or oral solution

172 Itraconazole is a safe and widely used antifungal drug t

173 Itraconazole is available in oral form, is associated wi

174 Itraconazole is more effective than fluconazole for long

175 Except for gastrointestinal side effects, itraconazole is well tolerated.

176 te cells that identified the antifungal drug itraconazole (ITA) as an inhibitor of MFB cell fate in r

177 and C14 with four azoles, fluconazole (FLC), itraconazole (ITC), posaconazole (POS), and voriconazole

178 r amphotericin B (AMB), flucytosine (FC) and itraconazole (ITR) for eight Candida spp. (30,221 strain

179 tute (CLSI) M38-A broth dilution method with itraconazole (ITR), posaconazole (POS), ravuconazole (RA

180 th dilution method for amphotericin B (AMB), itraconazole (ITR), voriconazole (VOR), posaconazole (PO

181 Multiple antimicrobial agents, including itraconazole (ITR), were prescribed during hospitalizati

182 weeks with amphotericin B (AmB), followed by itraconazole (Itr).

183 of terbinafine (TRB) with fluconazole (FLU), itraconazole (ITRA), voriconazole (VRC), and posaconazol

184 5 mg/kg/day), AmB (2 mg/kg every other day), itraconazole (Itra; 75 mg/kg/day), AmB+Flu, or AmB+Itra.

185 , CYP3A4 also slowly oxidizes the antifungal itraconazole (ITZ) at a site that is approximately 25 A

186 Moreover calcitriol strongly synergizes with itraconazole (ITZ) in Smo inhibition, which did not resu

187 Itraconazole (ITZ) is an FDA-approved member of the tria

188 fine (TBF, targeting squalene epoxidase) and itraconazole (ITZ, targeting lanosterol C(14)-demethylas

189 tes were compared with those of terbinafine, itraconazole, ketoconazole, griseofulvin, and fluconazol

190 Clotrimazole, fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, voriconazole and ketaminazol

191 newly identified inhibitor of angiogenesis, itraconazole, leads to inhibition of mTOR activity in en

192 rgillus isolates tested with fluconazole and itraconazole matched the NCCLS published values.

193 s a higher amphotericin B, voriconazole, and itraconazole MIC and causes more chronic infection in CG

194 ilitated determination of amphotericin B and itraconazole MIC(RSA)s at 16 h equal to or within a sing

195 d 3.0%); 16.2% of isolates were resistant to itraconazole (MIC > or = 1 microg/ml).

196 9% of C. albicans isolates were resistant to itraconazole (MIC, > or = 1 micro g/ml), compared to 19.

197 uconazole, liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), itraconazole, micafungin and placebo.

198 A collection of 43 isolates for which itraconazole MICs fell outside of the ECV were used to a

199 24 h (90%), while the highest agreement for itraconazole MICs was after 24 h (90.3 versus 74.2%) of

200 Among 49 Aspergillus isolates for which itraconazole MICs were >2 mug/ml, the posaconazole and v

201 clinical isolates of A. fumigatus for which itraconazole MICs were < or = 2 microg/ml against posaco

202 alteration in all 15 isolates with elevated itraconazole MICs.

203 ning 0.03 to 16 micro g of amphotericin B or itraconazole/ml.

204 conazole (n = 20), posaconazole (n = 8), and itraconazole (n = 4), and a hematologic patient control

205 This suggests that the new effects of itraconazole occur in parallel to those previously repor

206 ls, which was known to rescue the effects of itraconazole on mTOR and cholesterol trafficking, was al

207 We assessed the effect of itraconazole on the HH pathway and on tumor size in huma

208 , including those who were changed to either itraconazole or posaconazole.

209 or disseminated disease include fluconazole, itraconazole, or amphotericin; newer triazoles (ie, vori

210 domized to receive fluconazole (400 mg/d) or itraconazole (oral solution 2.5 mg/kg 3 times daily, or

211 oriconazole with fluconazole (P = 0.005) and itraconazole (P = 0.008).

212 IFDs (18.9% with posaconazole and 38.7% with itraconazole, P< .001).

213 e trial, all the patients received 200 mg of itraconazole per day for 16 weeks.

214 st 50 kg received a single dose of 200 mg of itraconazole per day; those less than 13 years old or we

215 sceptibilities to fluconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, amphotericin B, and caspofun

216 ntifungal susceptibility testing methods for itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole by testing

217 is study was to compare MICs of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole obtained by

218 , the CLSI has developed ECVs for triazoles (itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole) and common

219 ungin, caspofungin, micafungin, fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole) using CLSI

220 ECVs, the percentages of non-WT isolates for itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole, respective

221 values (ECVs) for five Aspergillus spp. and itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole.

222 ous isolates to amphotericin B, caspofungin, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole.

223 ed amphotericin B, flucytosine, fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, ravuconazole, and voriconazo

224 the reproducibility in three laboratories of itraconazole, posaconazole, ravuconazole, voriconazole,

225 luded ciclopirox, fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, posaconazole, terbinafine, and voriconazol

226 uding ciclopirox, fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, posaconazole, terbinafine, and voriconazol

227 in, caspofungin, 5-flucytosine, fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole, and amphoteric

228 The drugs tested were amphotericin B, itraconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole, anidulafungin,

229 ized trial to determine whether prophylactic itraconazole prevents invasive mold infections (IMIs).

230 98%, respectively), whereas fluconazole and itraconazole produced less favorable MIC agreement (63.2

231 Itraconazole prophylaxis appears to be an effective and

232 hrough IFDs and overall survival compared to itraconazole prophylaxis.

233 Itraconazole provided better protection against IMI (flu

234 to 98%), agreement was good to excellent for itraconazole, ravuconazole, and voriconazole MFCs with R

235 ficial fungal infections occurred in 3 of 71 itraconazole recipients (4%) and in 2 of 67 fluconazole

236 vasive fungal infections occurred in 6 of 71 itraconazole recipients (9%) and in 17 of 67 fluconazole

237 , and, probably, antifungal prophylaxis with itraconazole reduce the rate of infection, and bone marr

238 Itraconazole reduced cell proliferation by 45% (P = .04)

239 Overall, arsenic trioxide and itraconazole reduced GLI1 messenger RNA levels by 75% fr

240 In conclusion, itraconazole resistance in A. terreus was linked to an M

241 prominently high for two previously defined itraconazole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus isolates an

242 nazole showed good in vitro activity against itraconazole-resistant isolates, but the MICs of voricon

243 s the most efficient medium for detection of itraconazole-resistant isolates, followed by RPMI-2.

244 By comparison, posaconazole and itraconazole resolved GM antigenemia, reduced residual f

245 o 8 months of treatment with fluconazole and itraconazole, respectively (difference, 13 percentage po

246 tant or sequential use of amphotericin B and itraconazole results in a negative interaction.

247 a renal cell carcinoma line, suggesting that itraconazole's effects extend beyond VEGFR2.

248 aconazole activities, failed to recapitulate itraconazole's effects on VEGFR2 glycosylation and signa

249 These results suggest that itraconazole selectively inhibits endothelial cells rath

250 MIC100 studies showed itraconazole should be considered as an alternative to k

251 0% of MICs were < or =1 microg/ml); however, itraconazole showed excellent activity against Aspergill

252 rimary xenograft models of human NSCLC, oral itraconazole showed single-agent growth-inhibitory activ

253 Neither fluconazole nor itraconazole showed statistically superior efficacy in n

254 Itraconazole significantly enhanced the antitumor effica

255 We report here that itraconazole significantly inhibited the binding of vasc

256 Hh pathways using CAY10404, cyclopamine, or itraconazole significantly reduced the myeloma tumor bur

257 method for determining the voriconazole and itraconazole susceptibilities of Aspergillus spp.

258 ppears to be a useful method for determining itraconazole susceptibilities of Aspergillus spp. and ot

259 tum, amphotericin B is the most active drug, itraconazole susceptibility is strain-dependent, and flu

260 rmance of the Etest for voriconazole and for itraconazole susceptibility testing of 376 isolates of A

261 The performance of the Etest for itraconazole susceptibility testing of 50 isolates of fi

262 Five MB isolates were itraconazole susceptible, whereas the minimum inhibitory

263 e PASCO method classified as resistant seven itraconazole-susceptible isolates (9%), two fluconazole-

264 ndard error of the mean MICs of fluconazole, itraconazole, terbinafine, and griseofulvin were 2.07 +/

265 Itraconazole therapy was implemented for 120 days, and t

266 comparing the groups taking posaconazole and itraconazole, there were no significant differences in t

267 light of the new intravenous formulation of itraconazole these data suggest that this agent remains

268 gibrachiatum, and Wangiella dermatitidis for itraconazole, three new triazoles (voriconazole, posacon

269 luconazole, four with ketoconazole, one with itraconazole, three with micafungin, and one with caspof

270 ith amphotericin B at 24 h and from 92% with itraconazole to 99% with amphotericin B and 5FC at 48 h.

271 mulate nano-amorphous spray-dried powders of itraconazole to enhance its oral bioavailability.

272 Itraconazole treatment did not affect A fumigatus sensit

273 Itraconazole treatment inhibited proliferation of endoth

274 pathway with sequential arsenic trioxide and itraconazole treatment is a feasible treatment for metas

275 reatment for 5 days, every 28 days, and oral itraconazole treatment on days 6 to 28.

276 Itraconazole treatment was associated with two adverse e

277 8% after fluconazole treatment and 18% after itraconazole treatment).

278 postsurgery and with a regimen of 200 mg of itraconazole twice a day, the patient was doing well and

279 ind trial of treatment with either 200 mg of itraconazole twice daily or placebo for 16 weeks in pati

280 assessed the anti-proliferative activity of itraconazole using an EOC cell line (SKOV3ip1) and endot

281 ology patients was resistant to fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, and posaconazole in vitro.

282 MICs of fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, and posaconazole were compar

283 and ungerminated conidia to amphotericin B, itraconazole, voriconazole, and SCH56592.

284 amil; diltiazem; cyclosporine; ketoconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, or posaconazole; and droneda

285 azem; amiodarone; fluconazole; ketoconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, or posaconazole; cyclosporin

286 ppeared to be susceptible to amphotericin B, itraconazole, voriconazole, ravuconazole, and posaconazo

287 Itraconazole was active against all Candida spp. (96% of

288 The effect of itraconazole was assessed by a combination of high-resol

289 The in vitro activity of itraconazole was determined against 7,299 isolates of Ca

290 Itraconazole was not active against fluconazole-resistan

291 Resistance to itraconazole was observed among C. glabrata (74.1%), C.

292 stem-cell transplantation, prophylaxis with itraconazole was still associated with fewer invasive fu

293 fter airway eradication of A. fumigatus with itraconazole, we observed decreased Gt, IL-5 and IL-13,

294 rative clinical trials, both fluconazole and itraconazole were effective therapy for progressive form

295 MICs of itraconazole were prominently high for two previously de

296 The interactions of amphotericin B and itraconazole were studied in murine invasive candidiasis

297 conazole and 90 to 91% with posaconazole and itraconazole when EUCAST MICs were compared against 24-h

298 ere shown to be resistant to fluconazole and itraconazole when tested in vitro; these same isolates h

299 binding site is competitively eliminated by itraconazole, which is a high-affinity ligand known to c

300 trial to compare the safety and efficacy of itraconazole with fluconazole in preventing fungal infec