ライフサイエンスコーパス: preemptive therapy

1 e [D-/R+]; 146 receiving prophylaxis and 150 preemptive therapy).

2 .74; P = .003; Q = 48.10; I(2) = 75.1%) than preemptive therapy.

3 patients deserves investigation of BG-driven preemptive therapy.

4 prevention can be achieved by prophylaxis or preemptive therapy.

5 trials to evaluate the role of risk directed/preemptive therapy.

6 biweekly monitoring with a serum CMV PCR for preemptive therapy.

7 for early detection and prompt initiation of preemptive therapy.

8 mpared with polymerase chain reaction-guided preemptive therapy.

9 996 to 2000 who received oral ganciclovir as preemptive therapy.

10 velopment of PTLD and a guide for initiating preemptive therapy.

11 th among patients with rising antigenemia on preemptive therapy.

12 reasing viral load during the early phase of preemptive therapy.

13 of antigenaemia (CMV-AG>10) used to initiate preemptive therapy.

14 therapy and as a guide to the institution of preemptive therapy.

15 d be useful as a guide for the initiation of preemptive therapy.

16 management of severe cholera, a strategy of preemptive therapy ($320 per death averted) costs less a

17 was significantly higher in recipients under preemptive therapy (38.7% vs. 11.0%, P<0.0001), with the

18 estinal biopsy specimens and can be used for preemptive therapy after intestinal transplantation.

19 ty to predict CMV disease and thus to direct preemptive therapy after lung transplantation.

20 D+/R+ recipients with preemptive therapy also had the highest rate of CMV dise

21 follow-up (group 1) and received appropriate preemptive therapy, although 66 (46%) patients had proto

22 omegalovirus (CMV) antigenemia levels during preemptive therapy among stem cell allograft recipients,

23 oidentical (haplo)-HSCT recipients receiving preemptive therapy, among whom the rate was 14.5%.

24 allenges remain for defining indications for preemptive therapies and integrating novel and conventio

25 55.6% of the patients with CMV treated with preemptive therapy and 49.8% of those without CMV infect

26 % using only universal prophylaxis, 21% only preemptive therapy, and 33% a hybrid combination depende

27 A preemptive therapy approach deserves further study.

28 risk R-/D+ patients, when followed using the preemptive therapy approach had no significant differenc

29 Prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are attractive strategies for this se

30 r dose, strategies combining vaccination and preemptive therapy become more cost-effective than thera

31 Antiviral toxicity may be decreased with preemptive therapy, but effectiveness for CMV prevention

32 vs. 30.1 +/- 4.7 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) in the preemptive therapy cohort, P < 0.05).CMV replication was

33 for patients with CMV infection who received preemptive therapy compared with those who never develop

34 he current era of effective prophylactic and preemptive therapy, cytomegalovirus (CMV) is now a rare

35 revent CMV include universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy; each has its merits, and will be com

36 ents who received transplants in the current preemptive therapy era (n = 233) showed only lymphopenia

37 a major challenge to define indications for preemptive therapies for PTLD and to integrate novel the

38 nced AIDS and further suggest that effective preemptive therapy for CMV can improve patient survival

39 that in an era of effective surveillance and preemptive therapy for CMV, AlloPBSC recipients can safe

40 mized controlled trial of prophylaxis versus preemptive therapy for CMV.

41 The efficacy of valganciclovir used as preemptive therapy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in

42 eillance, tapering of immunosuppression, and preemptive therapy for infection.

43 A phase 2 study incorporating preemptive therapy for PTLD is warranted to determine th

44 Preemptive therapy guided by pp65 antigenemia is a usefu

45 t liver transplant recipients, using routine preemptive therapy guided by the pp65 antigenemia test.

46 the advent of effective antiviral therapy, "preemptive therapy," guided by sensitive, early and spec

47 n (pp65) antigenemia (pp65emia) for starting preemptive therapy have not been well established.

48 cal trial to determine the clinical value of preemptive therapy in SMM.

49 economic merit of universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy in the management of cytomegalovirus

50 Adding vaccination to preemptive therapy is expensive: $1745 per additional de

51 utbreaks at the inception of a refugee camp (preemptive therapy) is the most cost-effective strategy

52 Preemptive therapy may reduce symptomatic CMV infections

53 ediate (D+/R+) CMV risk (n = 82) compared to preemptive therapy (n = 47) had no significant effect on

54 The preemptive therapy of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation

55 he qualitative assays could be used to guide preemptive therapy of R+ recipients, but plasma viral lo

56 The effect of preemptive therapy on indirect sequelae associated with

57 ed that the predictive nomogram would permit preemptive therapies or allocation decisions based on th

58 LT recipients managed with ganciclovir-based preemptive therapy (PET).

59 measurements of the EBV viral load to guide preemptive therapy (PT).

60 ganciclovir recipients versus 21% of placebo-preemptive therapy recipients (treatment difference, -0.

61 Defining criteria for preemptive therapy remains a challenge.

62 ter transplant for universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy, respectively.

63 Antigenemia-directed valganciclovir as preemptive therapy seems to be effective for the prevent

64 used drugs and diagnostics, ways to optimize preemptive therapy strategies with quantitative polymera

65 Preemptive therapy tended to decrease symptomatic CMV ep

66 Compared with preemptive therapy, universal prophylaxis incurred $1464

67 countries using no CMV prevention, and more preemptive therapy used in Asia.

68 Comparing preemptive therapy versus prophylaxis in D+/-/R+ patient

69 tem cell transplantation (SCT) in the era of preemptive therapy was assessed among 1750 patients by m

70 MV infection under universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy was determined among 653 R+ patients

71 The estimated cost of preemptive therapy was less than that of prophylaxis wit

72 The incidence among patients who received preemptive therapy was similar to that among patients wh

73 Thirteen years of outcome with the use of preemptive therapy were assessed in a cohort of 216 cons

74 h antigenemia who received valganciclovir as preemptive therapy were compared with 26.2% (21/80) of t

75 plications for patient management, including preemptive therapy, which can be guided by PCR, especial

76 Thus, universal prophylaxis dominates over preemptive therapy with a cost saving of $27,967 for 1 Q

77 were allowed to break the blind and receive preemptive therapy with caspofungin.

78 $0.22 per dose, however, supplementation of preemptive therapy with mass vaccination will become a c

79 Moreover, patients who respond to preemptive therapy with oral ganciclovir, with resulting

80 of EBV/PTLD as well as being used to inform preemptive therapy with reduction of immunosuppression,

81 evidence of EBV reactivation and potentially preemptive therapy with rituximab.

82 Two patients received preemptive therapy with valganciclovir for individual ep

83 kinetics of the decrease in HCMV load after preemptive therapy with VGCV in 22 solid-organ transplan

84 Preemptive therapy with VGCV provides control of HCMV re

85 Using a risk threshold of 50%, preemptive therapy would have been prescribed for 8.4% o