ライフサイエンスコーパス: patient population

1 may not be necessary to achieve SVR in this patient population.

2 as a less toxic alternative to WBRT for this patient population.

3 ve if targeted to the specific needs of each patient population.

4 al prophylaxis prior to chemotherapy in this patient population.

5 antly prolonged survival across the whole BC patient population.

6 dermatologic surveillance in this high-risk patient population.

7 isease, enabling precision medicine for this patient population.

8 ter PRRT with (177)Lu-DOTATATE was 4% in our patient population.

9 ents to inform management of this vulnerable patient population.

10 development of DBS to treat this vulnerable patient population.

11 omized trial of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

12 igand 1 [PD-L1]) versus chemotherapy in this patient population.

13 ation for optimising clinical trials in this patient population.

14 present a new treatment alternative for this patient population.

15 and make studies more generalizable to this patient population.

16 n IgG1 VEGFR-2 antagonist-or placebo in this patient population.

17 with treatment as usual in this severely ill patient population.

18 improve stroke prevention strategies in this patient population.

19 weighed against the incidence of PCP in the patient population.

20 ted with 1-year mortality in an older trauma patient population.

21 ing cause of morbidity and mortality in this patient population.

22 improve clinical outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

23 e the role of hypomethylating agents in this patient population.

24 use of intensive front-line therapy for this patient population.

25 promising for further investigation in this patient population.

26 rm impact of transcatheter MV repair in this patient population.

27 an understudied and potentially underserved patient population.

28 sease and other comorbidities in this unique patient population.

29 of everolimus compared with placebo in this patient population.

30 ould be considered a promising agent in this patient population.

31 as safe and generally well tolerated in this patient population.

32 solutions, are particularly relevant in this patient population.

33 for the treatment of digital ulcers in this patient population.

34 g to a larger efficacy trial in the existing patient population.

35 anti-CD20 antibody, ofatumumab, in a similar patient population.

36 ors affecting 30-day mortality in a national patient population.

37 and high-quality care to a growing and aging patient population.

38 or future studies in this difficult-to-treat patient population.

39 nt of vaginal bleeding complications in this patient population.

40 reducing unnecessary readmissions among this patient population.

41 this differed depending on the genotype and patient population.

42 rior studies of quetiapine in this and other patient population.

43 ify the durability of this procedure in this patient population.

44 iolimus-eluting Nobori stent in an all-comer patient population.

45 onoclonal antibody, and bendamustine in this patient population.

46 low for improved treatment tolerance in this patient population.

47 te the usefulness of kidney biopsies in this patient population.

48 mptoms can reduce postoperative risk in this patient population.

49 elopment of novel treatment methods for this patient population.

50 sponse status with an accuracy of 76% in the patient population.

51 oring might be particularly valuable in this patient population.

52 o programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), in this patient population.

53 itional option to treat this disease in this patient population.

54 ed risk prediction models in this vulnerable patient population.

55 oor, specific strategies are needed for this patient population.

56 potential for immediate application for this patient population.

57 uld be an effective treatment option in this patient population.

58 second-line therapy in this post-hydroxyurea patient population.

59 d to recognize and manage irAEs in a growing patient population.

60 current issues surrounding their use in this patient population.

61 f FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment in this patient population.

62 dict mortality within 30 days of PCI in this patient population.

63 ial experience with 63 to 69 Gy in a similar patient population.

64 both in asymptomatic controls and the tested patient population.

65 AM0010 was tolerated in a heavily pretreated patient population.

66 rable activity and good tolerability in this patient population.

67 portant for clinical decision making in this patient population.

68 r (SOF)/ledipasvir (LDV) without RBV in this patient population.

69 tests within 24 h of admission, forming the patient population.

70 t predictors of treatment resistance in this patient population.

71 benefits of a treatment in the intended-use patient population.

72 ical trials for this particularly vulnerable patient population.

73 nt option compared with chemotherapy in this patient population.

74 algorithm for clinicians to help manage this patient population.

75 lapses do occur, especially in the high-risk patient population.

76 round knowledge to understand and treat this patient population.

77 nto remission and long-term survival in this patient population.

78 been reported for the average dental implant patient population.

79 reatment regimen for eradicating HCV in this patient population.

80 efficacious and tolerable treatment in this patient population.

81 ial benefits of leadless therapy to a larger patient population.

82 entation of clinical trials in the ALS(SOD1) patient population.

83 ly change the evidence base for this growing patient population.

84 onia is the most important infection in this patient population.

85 t recommendations for the management of this patient population.

86 tegies for long-term disease control in this patient population.

87 of improved therapeutic strategies for this patient population.

88 to overcome treatment resistance in this AML patient population.

89 tment in this historically difficult-to-cure patient population.

90 long-term health management in this sizeable patient population.

91 e effects and poor responsiveness in certain patient populations.

92 the disease, often in vulnerable or elderly patient populations.

93 ntially normalizing executive dysfunction in patient populations.

94 airments and rehabilitation goals of diverse patient populations.

95 across a wide range of imaging protocols and patient populations.

96 monary vascular complications in susceptible patient populations.

97 ggressiveness and clinical outcomes in large patient populations.

98 e role as an adjuvant therapy in defined GBM patient populations.

99 s into the effects of canagliflozin in these patient populations.

100 making or physician interactions in diverse patient populations.

101 ed in clinical trials on genetically diverse patient populations.

102 ity in cancer and verified these findings in patient populations.

103 s predicted to have high efficacy in diverse patient populations.

104 oying predictive models developed in similar patient populations.

105 ation THVs for use in high- and extreme-risk patient populations.

106 nd well-established clinics with significant patient populations.

107 late winter/early spring among the evaluated patient populations.

108 in judgment may be beneficial in a range of patient populations.

109 nt levels of health improvement in different patient populations.

110 se inhibitors (TKIs) sensitive and resistant patient populations.

111 e-threatening conditions, affecting enormous patient populations.

112 sepsis surveillance once evaluated in other patient populations.

113 may still be clinically relevant in specific patient populations.

114 low- and middle-income clinical settings and patient populations.

115 thma biologics have included highly enriched patient populations.

116 Further studies are needed in diverse patient populations.

117 ions toward designing therapies for affected patient populations.

118 d sensitivity to broader molecularly defined patient populations.

119 nsity lipoprotein cholesterol across diverse patient populations.

120 iverse phenotypic consequences across cancer patient populations.

121 cs that maximizes efficacy and safety across patient populations.

122 nial response in cohort A in the all-treated-patients population.

123 Electrocardiographic Monitoring presented by patient population; (3) Organizational Aspects: Alarm Ma

124 rder to address the compliance issue in this patient population, a number of potential nalmefene prod

125 In a large patient population, a steady temporal decrease in patien

126 al adjustment can be made for differences in patient populations across providers so that differences

127 of acute antidepressant treatment in a large patient population, across clinical remission outcomes,

128 exclusions gave 39 publications in 3 arms of patient populations (adult, pediatric, and mixed).

129 pes of central venous catheters used in this patient population and analyse the different definitions

130 with digoxin use in a diverse real-world AF patient population and evaluate racial differences.

131 With an aging patient population and increasing complexity in patient

132 rate of 63% is the highest observed for this patient population and provides additional evidence for

133 e can be used as a prognostic factor in this patient population and should be used in preoperative ri

134 logic and immunologic considerations in this patient population and that balance patient safety, acce

135 ntrol condition depending on the risk to the patient population and the stage of development of the t

136 associations appear disconnected in certain patient populations and in differing clinical presentati

137 ve seen a rapid increase in the diversity of patient populations and of society in general, individua

138 Data on the patient populations and outcomes were extracted from eac

139 urine specimens (n = 124) from two different patient populations and samples spiked with ZIKV from th

140 nd differences in the guidelines for special patient populations and suggest areas of further study.

141 Patient populations and their nodule characteristics wer

142 00547659 was safe and well tolerated in this patient population, and better than placebo for inductio

143 on review of evidence, consideration of the patient population, and consultation with the research c

144 they were conducted in the ICU, had an adult patient population, and contained a discussion of active

145 raphics (like age, gender, and religiosity), patient population, and geography.

146 urrent EGFR-targeted agents in an unselected patient population, and highlight the need for predictiv

147 s across a wide range of tumor sites, sizes, patient populations, and imaging protocol variations.

148 series with risk of selection bias, indirect patient populations, and imprecise estimates.

149 may show superior effectiveness in specific patient populations, and initial U.S. prices for each ne

150 e variable accuracy, particularly in certain patient populations, and new tests may offer improved ac

151 on of relevant outcomes in small preselected patient populations, and the design of methods that faci

152 uding reverse sequence screening, in various patient populations; and harms of screening.

153 of arrhythmia monitoring among a variety of patient populations, appropriate use of ischemia and QT-

154 geographic distribution of physician and the patient population are also included in the model.

155 ver, data to support its ongoing use in this patient population are lacking.

156 s to high-quality EOL care for this specific patient population are largely unknown.

157 concomitant feeding strategies, and varying patient populations are important confounders.

158 logical factors and details of the reference patient populations are included within the guideline.

159 Further studies in larger patient populations are warranted.

160 doses of ITI-007 were well tolerated in this patient population, as evidenced by low discontinuation

161 uberculosis isolates from a diverse M/XDR-TB patient population at three high-burden clinical sites.

162 Patient populations at risk were most commonly criticall

163 tion in a variety of diagnostic settings and patient populations, at seven independent laboratories.

164 se of axillary lymph node dissection in this patient population based on 10-year outcomes.

165 Conclusion In this obese patient population, both MR elastography and VCTE had ex

166 f adverse cardiovascular outcomes in various patient populations, but the prognostic utility of GLS f

167 ornia) was developed to address this at-risk patient population by performing biventricular pacing vi

168 Country-specific assessments of patient populations can better reflect the real-world si

169 The prevalence of KC in our patient population, compared with previous reports in th

170 sment of health-related quality of life in a patient population confined to people with adenocarcinom

171 The patient population consisted of 44 women (30%) and 103 m

172 on with acute kidney injury in a replication patient population containing 206 cases with 1,406 contr

173 ervations: The available evidence from broad patient populations, contemporary randomized trials, and

174 t focused exclusively on treatment-resistant patient populations defined within the same study.

175 of projects today sequence the DNA of large patient populations each of which produces at least hund

176 stem can be used in rapid screening of large patient populations especially in the developing countri

177 published accounts of use of EBR/GZR in this patient population exist.

178 in the expanded palate, more than 80% of the patient population experiences significant postexpansion

179 r and aimed to identify the most appropriate patient population for combination therapy.

180 ocol for efficacy and in the intent-to-treat patient population for safety.

181 he efficacy, safety, dosing, and appropriate patient populations for this experimental treatment.

182 Clinical outcomes in large patient populations from real-world clinical practice wi

183 Currently, only two-thirds of this patient population has adequate seizure control.

184 e, the prevention of CMV replication in this patient population has the potential to improve transpla

185 ase, a rigorous comparison between different patient populations has not been conducted.

186 k compared with KTx recipients in the entire patient population (hazard ratio [HR], 4.06; 95% confide

187 prospective clinical trials in all affected patient populations (ie, those affected by concussion an

188 bing the immunogenicity of PE38 in different patient populations; (ii) review results from clinical t

189 considered to better reflect the real-world patient population, improve clinical trial participation

190 he efficacy and safety of eculizumab in this patient population in a phase 3 trial.

191 We investigated the entire OLT patient population in the United States to assess if our

192 in research settings, even in an unselected patient population in which oral failure was also a pred

193 Study Selection: 65 patient populations in 63 studies conducted in the Unite

194 impossibility of including large unselected patient populations in randomized clinical trials, as we

195 line includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute or recurre

196 line includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute or recurre

197 line includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute, subacute,

198 line includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with chronic insomnia

199 line includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with joint inflammati

200 line includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with joint inflammati

201 line includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with major depressive

202 line includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with type 2 diabetes.

203 line includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes all adults aged 60 years or

204 The target patient population includes men and women with low bone

205 able that achieve cure rates of >90% in many patient populations including individuals with HIV.

206 tients with intracardiac shunts, and special patient populations including pulmonary hypertension, pe

207 ed the cumulative effects of research in our patient population, including the effects of drug taper,

208 es obtained from two histologically distinct patient populations, inclusion body myositis (IBM) and a

209 in females but also affect substantial male patient populations; indeed, morbidity in complicated UT

210 However, the eligible patient population is a small fraction of those with hea

211 methylating agents in the management of this patient population is discussed.

212 w prognosis varies across this heterogeneous patient population is essential to individualize care an

213 definitive trial of fibrate therapy in this patient population is needed to confirm these findings.

214 ration drug-eluting stents (DESs) in a broad patient population is of interest.

215 A phase 3 study in this patient population is ongoing (NCT02348489) to assess gu

216 must prevail if the trust of this vulnerable patient population is to be honoured.

217 This patient population is, however, at high risk for cathete

218 ation of the overall risk-benefit in younger patient populations is an important consideration for th

219 though confirmation of our findings in other patient populations is needed, we propose consideration

220 of related clinical phenotypes in unselected patient populations is not well established.

221 in electronic health records (EHRs) of large patient populations is understudied.

222 these disorders in their pediatric and adult patient populations, leading to substantial delays in di

223 Our data further refine the patient population likely to receive the greatest benefi

224 y for metastatic breast cancer and a broader patient population may benefit from this unique HER2-tar

225 tumors and across a diverse immunocompetent patient population may provide a foundation from which t

226 Results In this obese patient population (mean body mass index = 40.3 kg/m(2);

227 ffer between treatment groups in the overall patient population (median overall survival 8.8 months [

228 ucted a hypothetical scenario to analyze the patient population most representative of the circumstan

229 cations, outcomes, and how to identify those patient populations most likely to benefit.

230 At 5 years, the overall patient population (N = 102) had an estimated overall su

231 In the total patient population (n=1147), median progression-free sur

232 ll depend on many factors, including special patient populations, obesity, renal function, the state

233 We did a pooled analysis of the combined patient populations of the three global randomised phase

234 Patients: Population of Colombia, stratified by sex, age

235 This large trial of raloxifene in this patient population offers a promising, well-tolerated ag

236 and PET/MRI compared with pBS, but a larger patient population or a patient population with a higher

237 , which may not be reflective of the greater patient population outside of the study.

238 roving cardiovascular health in a variety of patient populations, particularly those with limited exe

239 ost one in four head CTs in a university ICU patient population performed for primary indication of a

240 on concussions has primarily been limited to patient populations presenting to sport concussion clini

241 Likewise, for this patient population, progression-free survival was signif

242 mized clinical trial data and variability in patient populations, prophylactic and immunosuppressive

243 28-day all-cause mortality in a large sepsis patient population recruited across the United States.

244 The role of balloon catheters in this patient population remains ill defined.

245 isk stratification approach in this evolving patient population remains unclear.

246 tients have not been investigated fully in a patient population representing everyday practice.

247 risk of reactivation; HBV screening in this patient population should include the routine use of ant

248 lso report on the utility of FAST in special patient populations, such as pediatric and pregnant trau

249 imminent return, of awareness in 94% of the patient population, suggesting a global energetic thresh

250 g of a higher proportion of men and an older patient population than previous screening interventions

251 e replacement (SAVR), including a lower-risk patient population than previous trials.

252 routine clinical practice in a contemporary patient population that received both prior trastuzumab

253 The rationale is to target patient populations that are already sensitized to aller

254 is information can be used to define certain patient populations that are more likely to respond to i

255 e improved overall survival substantially in patient populations that have access to these advancemen

256 We identified patient populations that remain at risk for an event at

257 In the overall patient population, the most common grade 3 or worse adv

258 Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideli

259 Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideli

260 little is known about these associations in patient populations.This prospective study aimed to exam

261 of ischemia to more than 6 hours in certain patient populations to improve organ use.

262 ed as OPC, follow-up terms for specific OPC, patient populations to which these OPC apply, and (stati

263 g settings; 5 representative datasets from a patient population (total n = 20, all oncologic (18)F-FD

264 ne the TB cascade as including the following patient populations: total prevalent active TB patients

265 st studies were small and varied in terms of patient population, treatment, and MRD assessment method

266 The studies differ with regard to patient population, trial duration, and heart failure ou

267 ally used as second-line treatments in these patient populations, typically in addition to metformin.

268 ibility criteria are necessary to define the patient population under study and improve trial safety.

269 polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a broad patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary inte

270 olymer everolimus-eluting stent in a complex patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary inte

271 prospective validation in large, homogeneous patient populations uniformly treated with current stand

272 In this patient population, utilization management barriers to e

273 ce, which stand in stark contrast to diverse patient populations varying in age, weight, diet, and hy

274 Response durability and efficacy in this patient population warrants further investigation.

275 The patient population was 51.2% (253 of 494) female and had

276 ogical grade 3/4 AE, occurring in >5% of the patient population, was fatigue (14%).

277 patients and 4 studies that evaluated unique patient populations were identified.

278 umab significantly improved survival of this patient population when compared with standard single-ag

279 ly toxic, are difficult to establish in this patient population which tends to be older and plagued b

280 a higher rate of hospitalization in a large patient population who had been treated with substantial

281 cal to continue to work to define the select patient population who will derive durable benefit from

282 nsiderably over time and now serves a unique patient population with a high burden of cardiovascular

283 apsed/refractory DLBCL, a heavily pretreated patient population with a high unmet medical need.

284 This treatment addresses a key outcome in a patient population with a high unmet need (GSK Study 204

285 olumab might be a new treatment option for a patient population with a high unmet need.

286 th pBS, but a larger patient population or a patient population with a higher prevalence of bone meta

287 For a patient population with a mean weight of 92 kg and no hi

288 RI as compared with SPECT/CT and pBS in this patient population with a relatively low prevalence of b

289 In the patient population with dilated ascending aorta, both pe

290 f mutations, representing roughly 20% of the patient population with identified missense mutations, a

291 t experience and/or compensated cirrhosis, a patient population with limited treatment options.

292 lized medicine will require the selection of patient populations with attributes that can be targeted

293 racterize similarities and differences among patient populations with either PH-HFpEF or IPAH.

294 l therapy (OMT) improve outcomes in selected patient populations with established coronary heart dise

295 High 5-year survival rates are achievable in patient populations with high-risk GIST.

296 Given the ability to identify patient populations with increased inflammation, the pre

297 rs has thus far defied success, leaving this patient population without pharmacotherapeutic options.

298 the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high.

299 Recent studies suggest that these patient populations would benefit from cardiovascular th

300 e intent of bringing novel therapies to this patient population years before PFS results are mature.