ライフサイエンスコーパス: sirolimus

1 alities were blocked by the mTORC1 inhibitor sirolimus.

2 first 30 days), independent from presence of sirolimus.

3 ospholipid antibodies who were not receiving sirolimus.

4 itching immunosuppression from tacrolimus to sirolimus.

5 in lung function and cyst scores off and on sirolimus.

6 olymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus.

7 s either alone or in combination with MPA or sirolimus.

8 ated with belatacept and the mTOR inhibitor, sirolimus.

9 e other subgroup was treated with additional sirolimus.

10 rent PRES which resolved after discontinuing sirolimus.

11 ly associated with Tac and subsequently with sirolimus.

12 ng to a reduction in Tac and the addition of sirolimus.

13 in tumors, graft function, and problems with sirolimus.

14 e showed mild cholangitis possibly caused by sirolimus.

15 improved after switching from tacrolimus to sirolimus.

16 emains unclear among LT recipients receiving sirolimus.

17 the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor sirolimus.

18 hanced by their exposure to a short pulse of sirolimus.

19 ce of skin cancer in renal OTRs treated with sirolimus.

20 plenomegaly within 1 to 3 months of starting sirolimus.

21 were spared, suggesting a targeted effect of sirolimus.

22 e 2-year follow-up period in those receiving sirolimus (0.82 v 1.38 per year; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32

23 diac transplant recipients were converted to sirolimus 1.2 years (0.2, 4.0) after transplantation wit

24 A biodegradable polymer gel loaded with sirolimus (2.5mg/mL) was immediately applied perivascula

25 nce levels were tacrolimus, 2 to 4 ng/mL and sirolimus, 4 to 6 ng/mL or, if calcineurin inhibitor-wit

26 Sirolimus (440 mug) was administered every 3 months as a

27 was not significantly different between the sirolimus (69.1+/-18.7 mL/min) and CsA (66.0+/-15.2 mL/m

28 Among 10 patients treated with sirolimus, 7 (70%) had a functioning renal allograft 144

29 g/mL or, if calcineurin inhibitor-withdrawn, sirolimus 8 to 12 ng/mL with mycophenolate mofetil 2 g t

30 esions treated with drug-eluting stents (355 sirolimus, 846 paclitaxel, 1387 zotarolimus, and 343 eve

31 In human ADPKD studies, sirolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mT

32 decrease (to 2971 +/- 4014 pg/ml) in the OFF SIROLIMUS AFTER 12 MONTHS group (p=0.013, Mann-Whitney t

33 th baseline (to 787 +/- 426 pg/ml) in the ON SIROLIMUS AFTER 12 MONTHS group versus a 13% decrease (t

34 mixed-organ cohort of OTRs, patients taking sirolimus after developing posttransplant cancer had a l

35 ared to recipients receiving basiliximab and sirolimus alone (graft survival time 8, 8, 10 days).

36 Sirolimus alone resulted in hyperinsulinemia after oral

37 Sirolimus and tacrolimus/sirolimus also increased random blood glucose levels.

38 he patients had a clear glycemic response to sirolimus, although one patient required a small dose of

39 gs may also explain why the immunosuppressor sirolimus, an inhibitor of this pathway, can cause prote

40 o known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period o

41 HAECs treated with Mf and the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus and 14-day rabbit iliacs treated with the comb

42 We randomized 122 patients, 62 to sirolimus and 60 to tacrolimus.

43 malian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus are increasingly used in cardio

44 troke, we administered the mTORC1 inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus to mice.

45 alian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, sirolimus and everolimus, are increasingly used after or

46 were used to assess the differences between sirolimus and its analog, everolimus, in the setting of

47 ul for monitoring response to treatment with sirolimus and kidney angiomyolipoma size in patients wit

48 Tacrolimus or sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil exposure was identic

49 received the same conditioning regimen with sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil immune suppression.

50 .4%; P=0.14), with nine deaths reported with sirolimus and one with CsA; higher rates of biopsy-confi

51 otal Score between 1 and 2 years in both the sirolimus and tacrolimus groups.

52 Sirolimus and tacrolimus/sirolimus also increased random

53 and mycophenolate maintenance with switch to sirolimus and weaning over 2 years.

54 eceived an mTOR inhibitor (56 everolimus, 11 sirolimus) and 41 did not.

55 n the sirolimus group (6 after withdrawal of sirolimus) and in 22 (39%) in the calcineurin-inhibitor

56 mycophenolate immunosuppression converted to sirolimus, and complete drug withdrawal by 24 months pos

57 , hydroxychloroquine, rituximab, eculizumab, sirolimus, and defibrotide, that can be considered in CA

58 ing toxicity, rapamycin (Rapa) also known as Sirolimus, and evaluate its effects on the inflamed lacr

59 alian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, sirolimus, and everolimus, may decrease the incidence an

60 ed doses), total-body irradiation (300 cGy), sirolimus, and infusion of unmanipulated filgrastim mobi

61 f the nongenetic factors, use of tacrolimus, sirolimus, and older age were associated with increased

62 Tacrolimus, sirolimus, and tacrolimus/sirolimus impaired glucose tol

63 clinical trials that investigated the use of sirolimus- and everolimus-based treatment regimens in de

64 was 10.8% and 9.1% in patients allocated to sirolimus- and everolimus-eluting stent, respectively (P

65 r adverse events was 15.9% versus 11.1% with sirolimus- and everolimus-eluting stent, respectively (P

66 rsus 0.13+/-0.69 mm in patients allocated to sirolimus- and everolimus-eluting stent, respectively.

67 Cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and sirolimus are designated as "critical dose drugs" and ar

68 Two adverse effects of sirolimus are hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterole

69 otocol suggests that low-dose tacrolimus and sirolimus are not toxic to islets.

70 mTOR inhibitors, including rapamycin (sirolimus), are currently being evaluated in cancer tria

71 because of high acute rejection rates in the sirolimus arm.

72 We retrospectively analyzed the potential of sirolimus as a primary immunosuppressant in the long-ter

73 us squamous-cell carcinoma either to receive sirolimus as a substitute for calcineurin inhibitors (in

74 multicenter prospective clinical trial using sirolimus as monotherapy.

75 rom 1998 to 2010, identifying a cohort using sirolimus as part of the initial immunosuppression (SRL

76 Substituting calcineurin inhibitor with sirolimus as primary immunosuppressant attenuates long-t

77 Ours is the first report of sirolimus-associated PRES in the setting of multiviscera

78 Larger studies are needed to quantify sirolimus-associated risk reduction for other cancer typ

79 Conversion from tacrolimus to sirolimus at 1-month posttransplant in kidney transplant

80 e in serum creatinine led to the addition of sirolimus at 3 months after transplantation with concomi

81 Conversion to sirolimus-based immunosuppression failed to show a benef

82 ients, we investigated whether conversion to sirolimus-based immunosuppression from standard immunosu

83 We investigated whether sirolimus-based immunosuppression improves outcomes in l

84 TG induction, and caution against the use of sirolimus-based maintenance therapy, in HIV-positive ind

85 0.48 to 1.2; P = .255), compared with a non-sirolimus-based regimen.

86 Conversely, HIV-positive patients receiving sirolimus-based therapy had a 2.2-fold higher risk of AR

87 A sirolimus-based, CNI-free immunosuppressive regimen, whe

88 Twenty-nine patients stopped taking sirolimus because of various adverse events.

89 Taken together, our findings indicate that sirolimus causes depletion of intracellular Ca(2+) store

90 Sirolimus causes hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholester

91 Various sirolimus-coated balloons effectively reduce neointimal

92 In the sirolimus combined with corticosteroids treatment group,

93 entilator at 3 months was also better in the sirolimus combined with corticosteroids treatment.

94 Peak sirolimus concentrations were 13.6 +/- 4.5 mug/L (24.8 m

95 There are no published reports of sirolimus CVD in liver transplantation.

96 Although addition of sirolimus decreased aGVHD, survival was not improved.

97 tide-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) and crystalline sirolimus deposited by a dry-powder electrostatic proces

98 Sirolimus-derived Tregs were phenotypically normal, aner

99 single sirolimus-eluting stent with a total sirolimus dose of 245 mug (n = 1), 194 mug (n = 5), or 1

100 .3, 14.5) days for the 245, 194, and 143 mug sirolimus dose stents, respectively.

101 BEL, mycophenolic acid (MPA), and sirolimus, either alone or in combination, were added to

102 rate of stent thrombosis when compared with sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.74),

103 d with BMS (reference rate ratio [RR] of 1), sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.46; 95% credibility inter

104 tion-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus eluting stent, paclitaxel eluting stent, evero

105 nt, but without significant differences from sirolimus-eluting (-0.2% [95% CI -6.2 to 5.6]) or paclit

106 n acute thrombogenicity between the Magmaris sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable magnesium scaffold and t

107 milar scaffold strut thickness, the Magmaris sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable magnesium scaffold was s

108 INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-in

109 d patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent)

110 brin deposition were significantly higher in sirolimus-eluting compared with everolimus-eluting and b

111 definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 patients [0.1%] versus 9 pati

112 ailure occurred in 48 patients (3.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting group and in 58 patients (4.6%) in the

113 stent thrombosis occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the sirolimus-eluting group compared with 15 (1.2%) biolimus

114 uting stents: the thin-strut cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and the stainless steel b

115 The thin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the bi

116 itaxel-eluting stent (0.39 [0.24-0.62]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.32 [0.18-0.50]) are associate

117 itaxel-eluting stent (0.35 [0.13-0.76]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.36 [0.11-0.86]) for target ve

118 f 1261 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent (1590 lesions) and 1264 patients

119 clitaxel-eluting stent (81% increase) and to sirolimus-eluting stent (47% increase).

120 ing stent versus 105 (7.6%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confide

121 taxel-eluting stent (RR=1.57 [1.15-2.19]) or sirolimus-eluting stent (RR=1.43 [1.06-1.97]) was associ

122 (PES) and is noninferior or superior to the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in terms of safety and eff

123 l randomised trials of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-e

124 rred in 346 (32.5%) in the group receiving a sirolimus-eluting stent and in 342 (33.1%) in the group

125 clinical outcomes of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer

126 The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer

127 er and endothelial integrity was impaired in sirolimus-eluting stent compared with both everolimus-el

128 red with 72 patients (5.2%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end poin

129 of 883 patients in the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and 41 (10%) of 427 patien

130 nt had occurred in 40 patients (5.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6.5%)

131 ations occurred in 12 patients (1.7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1.4%) in

132 ng drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amoun

133 s pharmacokinetics in neonates who underwent sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in the arterial duc

134 In neonates after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation, peak sirolimus lev

135 paring the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery

136 imus-eluting stent with the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary total

137 r probability that the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent is non-inferior to the durable p

138 trathin strut (60 mum) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolim

139 ance of the ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everoli

140 of the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimu

141 Nine neonates received a single sirolimus-eluting stent with a total sirolimus dose of 2

142 everolimus-eluting stent is as effective as sirolimus-eluting stent.

143 n >2 weeks were randomized to everolimus- or sirolimus-eluting stent.

144 Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) proved noninferior to

145 gned to treatment with bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer ever

146 an BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and less ST than BES.

147 rolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus those of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are unknown.

148 s-eluting stents (EES) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in primary percutaneous c

149 Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) were also associated with

150 Sirolimus-eluting stents dramatically improved the clini

151 te were validated in porcine coronary artery sirolimus-eluting stents implants.

152 Sirolimus-eluting stents may have clinical advantages ov

153 balloons (DCB), -9.4% (-17.4 to -1.4) versus sirolimus-eluting stents, -10.2% (-18.4 to -2.0) versus

154 ting stents, 5 trials (n=7370) of EES versus sirolimus-eluting stents, and 1 trial (n=2292) of EES ve

155 a pooled group of paclitaxel-eluting stents, sirolimus-eluting stents, and zotarolimus-eluting stents

156 profile of a novel thin-walled (115 microm) sirolimus-eluting ultrahigh molecular weight amorphous p

157 the vascular response to everolimus-eluting, sirolimus-eluting, and bare metal stent placement.

158 ior and vascular healing profile of a novel, sirolimus-eluting, high-molecular-weight, amorphous poly

159 rexate (standard) or tacrolimus/methotrexate/sirolimus (experimental).

160 ver, little information exists on the use of sirolimus for the prevention of skin cancer in nonrenal

161 ed in a phase 2 multicenter trial evaluating sirolimus for the treatment of kidney angiomyolipomas as

162 These findings support advancing the present sirolimus formulation into phase II studies.

163 All participants were treated with sirolimus from 0-12 months.

164 ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) c

165 els often lead clinicians to discontinue the sirolimus from concerns of an increased cardiovascular d

166 than high-risk, patients benefited most from sirolimus; furthermore, younger recipients (age </=60) a

167 inomas developed in 14 patients (22%) in the sirolimus group (6 after withdrawal of sirolimus) and in

168 tilator use was significantly shorter in the sirolimus group (median, 7 vs 15 d; p = 0.03 by log-rank

169 o decrease endocrine apoptosis in tacrolimus/sirolimus group and reduced islet insulin content in sir

170 Patients in the sirolimus group experienced numerically lower survival r

171 months; P=0.02), with a relative risk in the sirolimus group of 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.32 t

172 00.7-193.7 mm Hg], n = 17; p = 0.008) in the sirolimus group were significantly better over the nonsi

173 In the sirolimus group, 23% of patients discontinued the drug b

174 There were 60 serious adverse events in the sirolimus group, as compared with 14 such events in the

175 or, either with sirolimus (Rapamune 2 mg/d) (sirolimus group, n = 19) for 14 days or without sirolimu

176 respectively) significantly improved in the sirolimus group.

177 s group and reduced islet insulin content in sirolimus group.

178 acrolimus group and 56 patients (90%) of the sirolimus group.

179 up A: 264 patients) or a group incorporating sirolimus (group B: 261).

180 gher odds of treatment, whereas diabetes and sirolimus had a lower odds of treatment, and treatment w

181 Switching from calcineurin inhibitors to sirolimus had an antitumoral effect among kidney-transpl

182 required transplantation and were receiving sirolimus had no recurrence of vascular lesions and had

183 Sirolimus has activity against acute lymphoblastic leuke

184 Sirolimus has been shown to be a beneficial component fo

185 However, sirolimus has immunosuppressive actions and little is kn

186 tus in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) on sirolimus have not been widely studied.

187 alemtuzumab-induced depletion and belatacept/sirolimus immunosuppression were studied longitudinally

188 Alemtuzumab induction and belatacept/sirolimus immunotherapy effectively prevent CoBRR.

189 Tacrolimus, sirolimus, and tacrolimus/sirolimus impaired glucose tolerance compared to control

190 Under hyperglycemic conditions, sirolimus impaired human aortic endothelial cell barrier

191 Here we show that sirolimus impairs glucose-stimulated insulin secretion b

192 mmalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor sirolimus in four infants with severe hyperinsulinemic h

193 Finally, we studied the effect of sirolimus in kidney-transplant recipients with the antip

194 Sirolimus in LTx recipients with HCC does not improve lo

195 s, basiliximab) with delayed introduction of sirolimus in patients with renal impairment.

196 msirolimus and 37.2 ng/mL for its metabolite sirolimus in the 25-mg cohort and 484 ng/mL and 91.1 ng/

197 bconjunctival injection of 30 muL (1320 mug) sirolimus in the study eye at the baseline visit.

198 Persistence of sirolimus in the vessel wall until 1 month was 40% to 50

199 We have shown that tacrolimus and sirolimus induce hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia in n

200 ing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall.

201 Intravitreal sirolimus is currently undergoing phase 3 trials in uvei

202 t the CVD incidence is similar suggests that sirolimus is in fact cardioprotective.

203 ng-term treatment with conventional doses of sirolimus is insufficient to inhibit mTOR activity in re

204 Whether sirolimus is useful in the prevention of secondary skin

205 Here the delivery and degradation of a sirolimus-laden polymer gel were monitored in vivo by ma

206 Perivascular application of sirolimus-laden polymer yielded a significant decrease i

207 Subconjunctival sirolimus leads to a short-term reduction in scleral inf

208 In summary, sirolimus led to CR and durable responses in a majority

209 l studies was to achieve high and persistent sirolimus levels in the vessel wall after administration

210 r sirolimus-eluting stent implantation, peak sirolimus levels were 20 x higher and clearance 30 x low

211 Sirolimus levels were within the immunosuppressive range

212 herapy with the same low-dose tacrolimus and sirolimus maintenance immunosuppression as in the Edmont

213 h early steroid withdrawal and tacrolimus or sirolimus maintenance.

214 Importantly, we demonstrate that sirolimus markedly depletes calcium (Ca(2+)) content in

215 In addition to calcineurin inhibitors, sirolimus may also be associated with PRES after solid o

216 Subconjunctival sirolimus may not be beneficial in the prevention of GA

217 n-gamma at 97.5%; P=0.004-0.008) followed by sirolimus (median inhibition at 82.4%).

218 In the sirolimus/metformin and tacrolimus/sirolimus/metformin g

219 In the sirolimus/metformin and tacrolimus/sirolimus/metformin groups, mean daily random glucose wa

220 (CVD) risk; however, evidence suggests that sirolimus might be cardioprotective.

221 Patients were weaned to tacrolimus or sirolimus monotherapy at 3 months.

222 cipients (age </=60) also benefited, as well sirolimus monotherapy patients.

223 luated whether a CNI-free regimen, including sirolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, corticosteroids, and a

224 = 10) and randomly assigned to conversion to sirolimus (n = 74) or continuation of their original imm

225 75 transplanted patients randomized (2:1) to sirolimus (n=314) or cyclosporine A (CsA) treatment (n=1

226 267 with DM and 704 without DM) treated with sirolimus- (n=104), paclitaxel- (n=303), zotarolimus- (n

227 olimus group, n = 19) for 14 days or without sirolimus (nonsirolimus group, n = 19).

228 The effect of sirolimus or mycophenolate mofetil on NK cells was minim

229 DES), which impart the controlled release of sirolimus or paclitaxel from durable polymers to the ves

230 ts with stents eluting rapamycin (now called sirolimus) or its analogues (everolimus or zotarolimus)

231 Monitored drugs were mycophenolate mofetil, sirolimus, or azathioprine.

232 s received tacrolimus, sirolimus, tacrolimus/sirolimus, or control for 14 days, and four more groups

233 8 days in controls receiving basiliximab and sirolimus; p = 0.022).

234 This is a retrospective review of sirolimus pharmacokinetics in neonates who underwent sir

235 essive actions and little is known regarding sirolimus pharmacokinetics in the newborn.

236 n, given concurrently with tacrolimus and/or sirolimus, prevents disturbances in glucose and insulin

237 Both unpulsed and sirolimus-pulsed Tregs (SPTs) are capable of inhibiting

238 steroids with an mTOR inhibitor, either with sirolimus (Rapamune 2 mg/d) (sirolimus group, n = 19) fo

239 Sirolimus (rapamycin) is an immunosuppressive drug used

240 s estrogen-like compounds, antidiabetics and sirolimus/rapamycin.

241 Sirolimus reduced yearly declines in FEV1 (-2.3 +/- 0.1

242 anagement, infections, abdominal events, and sirolimus related toxic effects.

243 Sirolimus remained > 5 mug/L, the trough level used in o

244 Sirolimus replaced tacrolimus if serum creatinine remain

245 While sirolimus robustly inhibits mTORC1, it has a minimal eff

246 rly-generation drug-eluting stents releasing sirolimus (SES) or paclitaxel (PES) are associated with

247 ALPS patients were profound, suggesting that sirolimus should be considered as a first-line, steroid-

248 mune cytopenia cohorts were encouraging, and sirolimus should be considered in children with SLE, ES,

249 Belatacept and sirolimus significantly prolonged rejection-free graft s

250 on cyclosporine (CsA), tacrolimus (Tcr), and sirolimus (Sir).

251 All received belatacept and sirolimus; six also received alefacept.

252 s [EBV], or cytomegalovirus [CMV]) in KTR on sirolimus (SRL) + mycophenolate (MPA) or SRL + tacrolimu

253 he structurally related everolimus (EVL) and sirolimus (SRL) alone, and in combination with cyclospor

254 The role of sirolimus (SRL) conversion in the preservation of kidney

255 The aim was to evaluate if sirolimus (SRL) had a different effect on weight gain th

256 nhibitor-sparing or reduction regimens using sirolimus (SRL) have shown variable success in kidney tr

257 ric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) and sirolimus (SRL) in oral dosage forms was well-preserved.

258 t of calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity by sirolimus (SRL) is limiting the clinical use of this dru

259 reported the role of tacrolimus (TAC) versus sirolimus (SRL) on the generation of regulatory T cells

260 he efficacy and safety of the mTOR-inhibitor sirolimus (SRL) plus prednisone (PDN) in patients with E

261 omized at 3 months to be converted or not to sirolimus (SRL).

262 vert from CNI (calcineurin inhibitor)/MMF to sirolimus (SRL)/MMF had a significantly greater improvem

263 malian target of rapamycin inhibitors (e.g., sirolimus; SRL) appear to be more immunoregulatory and m

264 Furthermore, the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus strongly inhibited alloresponses in vitro, whe

265 The combination of belatacept and sirolimus successfully prevents islet allograft survival

266 al trial (BMT CTN 0402) comparing tacrolimus/sirolimus (Tac/Sir) vs tacrolimus/methotrexate (Tac/Mtx)

267 termine if the combination of tacrolimus and sirolimus (Tac/Sir) was more effective than tacrolimus a

268 re studied: four groups received tacrolimus, sirolimus, tacrolimus/sirolimus, or control for 14 days,

269 y-seven OTRs (29.5%) underwent conversion to sirolimus therapy after diagnosis.

270 Thus, conversion to sirolimus therapy may be considered in OTRs who develop

271 Sirolimus therapy slowed down lung function decline and

272 events, most patients were able to continue sirolimus therapy.

273 last study on sirolimus with studies done on sirolimus therapy.

274 Most patients were able to tolerate sirolimus therapy.

275 in the porcine coronary model to investigate sirolimus tissue levels at different time points as well

276 We tested whether addition of sirolimus to GVHD prophylaxis of children with ALL would

277 ilutions of tacrolimus, mycophenolate (MPA), sirolimus, tofacitinib, and belatacept.

278 ound in allograft rejection or death between sirolimus-treated and non-sirolimus-treated groups.

279 was observed in the sirolimus-treated vs non-sirolimus-treated groups overall (26 of 97 [26.8%] vs 89

280 n or death between sirolimus-treated and non-sirolimus-treated groups.

281 tion in skin cancer risk was observed in the sirolimus-treated vs non-sirolimus-treated groups overal

282 (subhazard ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.5-6.4), and sirolimus treatment (subhazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0

283 These included recommendations for sirolimus treatment and vascular endothelial growth fact

284 t baseline and 12 months, and decreases with sirolimus treatment in adults with tuberous sclerosis co

285 eration was significantly inhibited by Mf or sirolimus treatments alone and further reduced when they

286 aking belatacept with lowered tacrolimus and sirolimus trough levels.

287 During months 12-24, sirolimus was discontinued in one subgroup.

288 Approximately 90% of sirolimus was found to be eluted by 90 days.

289 Sirolimus was increased to maintain trough levels of 12-

290 Systemic exposure to sirolimus was low, with blood concentrations below level

291 Sirolimus was started on day 10 (range, day 1 to day 48)

292 CTLA4Ig plus 3A8, basiliximab and sirolimus was well tolerated and induced long-term islet

293 Sirolimus was well tolerated with very few side effects.

294 Repeated subconjunctival sirolimus was well-tolerated in patients with GA, althou

295 Locally administered sirolimus was well-tolerated with minimal systemic expos

296 /- 2 years (29.7 +/- 12.1%) after initiating sirolimus were not significantly different from pretreat

297 rs (n=28, with 7 also receiving steroids) or sirolimus with (n=3) or without calcineurin inhibitors (

298 fic antibody 3A8, basiliximab induction, and sirolimus with or without CTLA4Ig maintenance therapy.

299 compared cyst scores from the last study on sirolimus with studies done on sirolimus therapy.

300 vealed freedom from CNI, but not presence of sirolimus within the first 30 days, as critical for rena