ライフサイエンスコーパス: sucralfate

1 taken to confirm the antidiarrheal effect of sucralfate.

2 infectious complications when compared with sucralfate.

3 ophylaxis medications with emphasis on using sucralfate.

4 are unit, use of enteral feeding, and use of sucralfate.

5 han the cost per bleeding episode averted of sucralfate.

6 andomly, in double-blind fashion, to receive sucralfate (1.5 g orally every 6 hours) or an identical

7 lowed by proton pump inhibitors (23.1%), and sucralfate (12.2%).

8 SUP were ranitidine (31%), famotidine (24%), sucralfate (24%), and cimetidine (12%).

9 ed an H2-antagonist initially, 48% would add sucralfate, 36% would add antacid, and 13% would add ome

10 h antisecretory therapies in those who chose sucralfate (61%) as initial therapy compared with overal

11 Of those respondents who used sucralfate, 77% would add an H2-antagonist when SUP fail

12 r or vascular endothelial growth factor with sucralfate (a stabilizer) and Hydron (poly-HEMA (poly(2-

13 ociated pneumonia or mortality compared with sucralfate, an agent that does not affect intragastric p

14 mucositis and used the study medication (27 sucralfate and 23 placebo).

15 o prophylaxis, was calculated separately for sucralfate and cimetidine and expressed as cost per blee

16 In both the sucralfate and ranitidine groups, clinical characteristi

17 ient characteristics between those receiving sucralfate and those receiving placebo.

18 Group 1 (n = 10) received nasogastric sucralfate, and group 2 patients received intravenous ra

19 ralfate, and Hydron (control group) or bFGF, sucralfate, and Hydron (bFGF group).

20 and coated with either a mixture of saline, sucralfate, and Hydron (control group) or bFGF, sucralfa

21 Sucralfate did not decrease pelvic RT-related bowel toxi

22 as 67% would change to an H2-antagonist when sucralfate failed.

23 amotidine because of formulary availability, sucralfate for a better side effects profile, and cimeti

24 a randomized trial comparing ranitidine with sucralfate for gastritis prophylaxis were examined for a

25 The use of sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients requ

26 biotics and stress ulcer prophylaxis, use of sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis, chlorhexidine o

27 ho were placed on histamine-2-antagonists or sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

28 nitiation of therapy, aluminum levels in the sucralfate group increased dramatically on day 1 (median

29 points revealed that aluminum levels in the sucralfate group were up to 14 times higher, with the co

30 receptor antagonists are more effective than sucralfate in decreasing bleeding risk and transfusion r

31 There was no substantial benefit from the sucralfate in terms of esophagitis scores.

32 ve evidence were semi-recumbent positioning, sucralfate instead of H2-antagonists for stress ulcer pr

33 Randomized studies have suggested that sucralfate is effective in mitigating diarrhea during pe

34 ve randomized trial evaluating the impact of sucralfate on bowel function in patients receiving pelvi

35 ursuant to preliminary data that suggested a sucralfate oral solution could alleviate chemotherapy-in

36 rity of nausea were worse among those taking sucralfate (P =.03).

37 ped their study medication, compared with 20 sucralfate patients (40%).

38 idences of gastrointestinal toxicity (58% of sucralfate patients v 14% of placebo patients; P > .0001

39 and, to a lesser degree, on the efficacy of sucralfate prophylaxis, ranging from a cost per bleeding

40 umbent positioning in all eligible patients, sucralfate rather than H2-antagonists in patients at low

41 This oral sucralfate solution does not appear to inhibit radiation

42 h patient was randomized to receive either a sucralfate solution or a placebo solution to be used if

43 ized, in a double-blind manner, to receive a sucralfate solution or an identical-appearing placebo so

44 rend toward more problems in patients taking sucralfate than in those taking placebo (average, 2.3 v

45 n the ranitidine-treated group and 50 in the sucralfate-treated group (p = 0.0014).

46 mpared with patients receiving placebo, more sucralfate-treated patients reported fecal incontinence

47 ea was observed in 53% of patients receiving sucralfate versus 41% of those receiving placebo.

48 sk-reduction due to prophylaxis, the cost of sucralfate was $1,144 per bleeding episode averted.

49 Sucralfate was given to 47, and 49 received ranitidine.

50 ascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and sucralfate were prepared and implanted into the stroma m

51 did not support the prestudy hypothesis that sucralfate would be beneficial for the treatment of 5FU-