ライフサイエンスコーパス: treatment arm

1 lable for the efficacy analysis (181 in each treatment arm).

2 233], P = 0.03 in fully adjusted models; all treatment arms).

3 controls by age, trial, follow-up time, and treatment arm.

4 PFS did not differ with age in either treatment arm.

5 ere assessed according to tumor location and treatment arm.

6 clusters of individuals are assigned to each treatment arm.

7 ular treatment arm and 9.1 for the as-needed treatment arm.

8 ere associated with longer OS, regardless of treatment arm.

9 tal of 20 patients were enrolled, 10 in each treatment arm.

10 increase in testosterone level regardless of treatment arm.

11 igher graft loss at 24 months, regardless of treatment arm.

12 s in the first 54 patients assigned to every treatment arm.

13 eived combination therapy, regardless of the treatment arm.

14 nces when compared through a common standard treatment arm.

15 (P = .02) and OS (P = .0066), independent of treatment arm.

16 associated with known prognostic factors or treatment arm.

17 tation on progression-free survival (PFS) by treatment arm.

18 to generate the total 2-year costs for each treatment arm.

19 Analyses were conducted by treatment arm.

20 de 3 rash was significantly higher in the no-treatment arm.

21 ere assessed according to tumor location and treatment arm.

22 identify long-term adverse health events by treatment arm.

23 dence of skin toxicity was 84% regardless of treatment arm.

24 ated with increased risk of bleeding in both treatment arms.

25 bserved difference in delayed anemia between treatment arms.

26 There was no apparent difference between the treatment arms.

27 asma viremia and quality of life between the treatment arms.

28 at 5 years remained high and similar across treatment arms.

29 terial ischemic events were uncommon in both treatment arms.

30 vels of ESR1 were associated with pCR in all treatment arms.

31 mination score was not different between the treatment arms.

32 of-life scores over time were similar in the treatment arms.

33 o significant differences were found between treatment arms.

34 se events did not differ significantly among treatment arms.

35 vels of ESR1 were associated with pCR in all treatment arms.

36 associated with poorer outcome in all of the treatment arms.

37 eronegative from both the placebo and active treatment arms.

38 The primary objective was met in both treatment arms.

39 median OS, 7 years), again similarly in both treatment arms.

40 paroxysmal AF were randomized to 2 different treatment arms.

41 regression models with interaction terms for treatment arms.

42 from GI bleeding was low and similar in both treatment arms.

43 and rectum (29%) without differences between treatment arms.

44 ed mean change across medication and placebo treatment arms.

45 nts were not significantly different between treatment arms.

46 cant differences in outcome measures between treatment arms.

47 ferences in secondary outcomes between the 2 treatment arms.

48 PZ/CIS arm, with resulting tolerance in both treatment arms.

49 I recommended LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dl across treatment arms.

50 ment arm, and 2 patients dropped out in both treatment arms.

51 ecreased during the maintenance phase in all treatment arms.

52 uality-of-life scores did not differ between treatment arms.

53 cs of the 424 patients were balanced between treatment arms.

54 acizumab discontinuation was similar in both treatment arms.

55 group (3 x 25 mg/kg) than in the single-dose treatment arms.

56 ifference in any lipid changes between the 3 treatment arms.

57 calculators to BENEFIT and BENEFIT-EXT trial treatment arms.

58 d) to 1 of 3 parallel, 6-month, double-blind treatment arms.

59 on also did not differ significantly between treatment arms.

60 ne characteristics were found when comparing treatment arms.

61 in ocular perfusion pressures between the 2 treatment arms.

62 5 participants were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment arms.

63 ristics were similar in both zoledronic acid treatment arms.

64 atients being randomly assigned to effective treatment arms.

65 effect was considerably decreased with both treatment arms.

66 fection frequency did not differ between the treatment arms.

67 ed to balance cohort characteristics between treatment arms.

68 ents to the control or clofarabine induction treatment arms.

69 D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms.

70 relationship of eGFR with end points across treatment arms.

71 ini-infected patients were assigned to the 5 treatment arms.

72 ose-limiting toxicities were similar between treatment arms.

73 overall survival time was 3.9 years in both treatment arms.

74 nd ectasia after refractive surgery in the 2 treatment arms.

75 th of PCI and persisted up to 1 year in both treatment arms.

76 in the occurrence of adverse events between treatment arms.

77 ns of patients showed recurrent fluid in all treatment arms.

78 her the choline (n = 29) or placebo (n = 26) treatment arms.

79 or OS (P = .77) across the three randomized treatment arms.

80 %] of 181) and vancomycin (128 [71%] of 181) treatment arms.

81 function in both the placebo and pravastatin treatment arms.

82 lure, and survivals were similar between the treatment arms.

83 were randomly assigned, 50 to each of three treatment arms.

84 evere GI bleeding rates were similar between treatment arms (0.47 events/100 patient-years vs. 0.41 e

85 Grade 3 toxicities were rare in both treatment arms (1.4% v 0%), but grade 1 and 2 toxicities

86 treated with diuretic agents alone to three treatment arms: 1) ACEI therapy alone; 2) ACEI+BB; and 3

87 ding artery ligation and were divided into 4 treatment arms: (1) normal saline control (n=14), (2) un

88 seven studies were identified comprising 139 treatment arms (11 general immune stimulation, 84 vaccin

89 superiority RCTs comparing mortality between treatment arms, 13 (38%) accrued a sample size large eno

90 Across all treatment arms, 13% to 28% of enrolled eyes were the bet

91 Within three treatment arms, 194 chromosomal subregions are associate

92 here was no difference in median survival by treatment arm (2.6 v 2.7 years; HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.58

93 The absolute event risk difference between treatment arms (2.2; -1.6 to 16.0) was not statistically

94 Successes did not differ between treatment arms (24 of 58 LD vs 22/57 HD, P = .909).

95 -normal tumors, median PFS did not differ by treatment arm (4.1 v 3.8 months).

96 Patients were randomised to one of two treatment arms, 5-10 sessions of cognitive behaviour the

97 not significantly different between the two treatment arms: 5-year EFS was 77% +/- 4% in the STRT gr

98 randomly assigned 365 patients to different treatment arms (63 to rifampicin 35 mg/kg, isoniazid, py

99 olled: 25 were randomized to the combination treatment arm A, and 23 to arm B.

100 Zimbabwe were randomized to 3 antiretroviral treatment arms: A (lamivudine-zidovudine plus efavirenz,

101 Phase 2 compared two randomized treatment arms: a medication only arm (venlafaxine plus

102 N1-3M0 were randomly assigned to one of four treatment arms: (A) two ICT cycles (fluorouracil 800 mg/

103 Only one of six active treatment arms across the three studies offered an advan

104 difference in the primary end point between treatment arms (active, n = 46; control, n = 47; median

105 ificant prognostic factors for survival with treatment arm, age older than 65 years, and low serum al

106 olve two active comparators rather than a no-treatment arm among patients with LN-positive or R1 dise

107 mately 20.3% of enrolled patients in the gel treatment arm and 17.3% of enrolled patients in the oint

108 36 deaths were recorded (263 in the standard treatment arm and 273 in the experimental arm).

109 ty studies with 728 patients in a sequential treatment arm and 682 in a control treatment arm were in

110 umber of treatments was 10.8 for the regular treatment arm and 9.1 for the as-needed treatment arm.

111 icant interactions were not observed between treatment arm and age (P interaction = .09 for DFS, .05

112 ardless of treatment assignment (P=0.046 for treatment arm and baseline VAS interaction).

113 2 independent reviewers, masked to assigned treatment arm and clinical outcomes, performed consensus

114 e two serious adverse events reported in the treatment arm and four in the placebo arm, none of which

115 We also investigated the association between treatment arm and ICH expansion at 24 hours.

116 2 of 76 patients (29%; 95% CI, 20-40) in the treatment arm and in 43 of 76 patients (57%; 95% CI, 45-

117 hborhood within the experiment's low-poverty treatment arm and predicted selection into poorer neighb

118 of 692 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment arm and received study drug (344 in the COBI g

119 There was an interaction between the treatment arm and the genotype groups (P=0.02).

120 , were a mean of 126.5 mmHg in the intensive treatment arms and 132.6 mmHg in the conventional arms (

121 these periods was assessed across randomized treatment arms and by DAPT score values <2 or >/=2.

122 facilitates complex experiments with several treatment arms and clustered data.

123 tervention study were randomly assigned to 4 treatment arms and genotyped for APOE (rs429358 and rs74

124 9-protein risk scores were similar in the 2 treatment arms and higher in participants with subsequen

125 ; 20%) and control (2 of 14 subjects; 14.3%) treatment arms and no significant difference between cha

126 Health status changes between treatment arms and remission status were evaluated adjus

127 e occurred in 4.2%, evenly distributed among treatment arms and subtypes.

128 ong everolimus (EVR) and mycophenolate (MPA) treatment arms and used a time-dependent model to correl

129 wise prognostic for overall survival in both treatment arms and was more closely associated with extr

130 n a blocked schedule among 3 sites to 1 of 4 treatment arms and were followed up for 16 weeks between

131 Fifteen patients were randomized in each treatment arm, and 2 patients dropped out in both treatm

132 expected adverse events identified in either treatment arm, and pleural effusion was the only drug-re

133 were included in the high-dose and low-dose treatment arms, and 10 in the placebo arm.

134 cognitive decline in all domains, across all treatment arms, and in all participant subgroups assesse

135 Women were allocated equally between treatment arms, and the study was not blinded.

136 In the combination treatment arm (arm A), statistically significant increas

137 The study had 3 treatment arms: arm 1, individualized prophylaxis (25-65

138 VA from baseline compared with the as-needed treatment arm, as well as superior reading speed.

139 ctive coping style (P < .001), regardless of treatment arm assignment.

140 ndividuals with keratoconus who entered each treatment arm at 25 years of age.

141 lness-related anxiety was comparable between treatment arms at all time points (P > .05), regardless

142 HRQOL differences between treatment arms at end of consolidation showed that for s

143 was not significantly different for the two treatment arms at follow-up.

144 Differences in MedDiet scores between treatment arms at month 6 were evaluated by using contra

145 alance in water and sanitation access across treatment arms at the start of the trial.

146 o last unformed stool did not differ between treatment arms (azithromycin, 3.8 hours; levofloxacin, 6

147 Cetuximab was added to each treatment arm based on promising preclinical data.

148 In multivariable analyses, including treatment arm, baseline covariates that were significant

149 ce was driven by an increase in the no-study-treatment arm because there was no significant change wi

150 ime-to-event prognosis into one of the three treatment arms: best (ie, longest time to first FAP-rela

151 In the combination treatment arm, bevacizumab was administered after the si

152 -4.0]) and in angina functional class in the treatment arm but not in the control group.

153 OS was not significantly different among treatment arms, but patients receiving prophylactic or r

154 sk genetic subgroups randomized to different treatment arms can identify approaches that improve surv

155 Within each treatment arm, cases with events were matched to control

156 iscontinuation of treatment was evaluated by treatment arm, cause, and timing.

157 in gastric and nongastric lymphomas, in each treatment arm (chlorambucil, rituximab, and rituximab pl

158 -two patients were randomized equally into 2 treatment arms (control and intervention).

159 Adults were randomized into 2 treatment arms, DEC 6 mg/kg + ALB 400 mg (N = 12) or DEC

160 Analysis of adverse events in both treatment arms demonstrated very little difference betwe

161 Patients on arm B had more rash, but treatment arms did not differ regarding rates of other g

162 r mixed-effects models were used to identify treatment arm differences on PRO end points and differen

163 were enrolled: 21 patients in the 400/400-mg treatment arm (DLBCL, n = 10; MCL, n = 11) and 19 patien

164 aseline and biannually were compared between treatment arms during a median follow-up of 3.81 years.

165 CR, followed by HER2-enriched subtype, ESR1, treatment arm, ER immunohistochemical analysis scores, G

166 usting for clinicopathological variables and treatment arms, ERBB2/HER2, HER2-enriched subtype, ESR1,

167 de 3 to 4 toxicities were comparable between treatment arms except HFSR/HFS (44% v 14%).

168 urned-shockable rhythms were balanced across treatment arms, except that recipients of a placebo incl

169 nificant differences were identified between treatment arms for 24-hour recanalization in proximal oc

170 No differences were seen in cCR between treatment arms for either histology (adenocarcinoma or s

171 here were no significant differences between treatment arms for hospital or ICU length of stay, organ

172 Patients were well matched between the treatment arms for patient and tumor characteristics: 26

173 er there were differences in survival across treatment arms for patients with different baseline biom

174 ere were no significant differences in the 2 treatment arms for the primary and secondary end points,

175 a mean BCVA of 5.5 letters and the as-needed treatment arm gaining 0.6 letters.

176 every 12 weeks (P = 0.008), with the regular treatment arm gaining a mean BCVA of 5.5 letters and the

177 on criteria were as follows: >/=15 subjects/ treatment arm, >/=8-wk intervention, a stated primary or

178 More patients in the 33 degrees C treatment arm had hyperglycemia.

179 The 31 patients enrolled in each treatment arm had similar baseline demographic and clini

180 eins who received the same treatment in both treatment arms had a statistically better PFS (P = .02)

181 n the first 10 mo did not differ between the treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06; 95% CI 0.61-1.84

182 Cardiovascular death was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.55-1.71; P

183 rs were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA

184 y of demonstrating the superiority of either treatment arm (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.59; P = .66),

185 ifference in the time to IRIS events between treatment arms (HR 1.08, 95% CI (0.66, 1.77), log-rank t

186 s used to randomly assign subjects to 1 of 4 treatment arms: immediate treatment with MTX plus etaner

187 stent thrombosis were recorded according to treatment arm in both study groups (4.0% versus 3.1%; HR

188 e as a group-wise efficacy threshold between treatment arms in clinical studies in which controllers

189 group C, N=42), using exactly the same three treatment arms in each trial.

190 ed no significant difference between the two treatment arms in either the intention-to-treat or per-p

191 ses showed no significant difference between treatment arms in mean centerpoint thickness in some sub

192 AA and AR outcomes; therefore we reviewed 35 treatment arms in patients with AA (20 for SCIT and 15 f

193 with AA (20 for SCIT and 15 for SLIT) and 23 treatment arms in patients with AR (7 for SCIT and 16 fo

194 As the difference between treatment arms in PB-MRD response rates increased, a red

195 ignificant differences were seen between the treatment arms in terms of the distribution of patients

196 there was no significant difference between treatment arms in the use of protocol-prohibited nodal f

197 All treatment arms included matching placebos.

198 After multivariable adjustment, treatment arm independently predicted MI at months 12 to

199 A regression model including a Nocardia-treatment arm interaction found corticosteroid use assoc

200 after adjusting for sex, treatment arm, sex-treatment arm interaction, pretreatment CD4 cell count,

201 In multivariable analysis treatment arm, intrinsic subtype, HER2 amplicon gene exp

202 ibility and ensure that allocation to either treatment arm is possible.

203 Both active treatment arms led to a substantial and sustained reduct

204 Both active treatment arms led to induction of dual IL-4/IL-10-produ

205 favorable outcomes in the pretransplant DAA treatment arm (low availability of HCV(+) organs, low co

206 Results In both treatment arms, median ages were 56 (younger group) and

207 Preliminary OS results were similar between treatment arms; median follow-up was approximately 23 mo

208 When stratified by treatment arm, more treatment failures were seen in the

209 Across studies and treatment arms, most patients completed 12 weeks of trea

210 In the customized treatment arm (n = 76), patients with activated EGFR mut

211 menopausal status, tumor size, nodal status, treatment arm, neuropathy, and hyperglycemia, no signifi

212 Of the 28 patients in the treatment arm of the cohort, seven (25%) demonstrated ev

213 om 31 high-risk SMM patients included in the treatment arm of the QUIREDEX trial, and with longitudin

214 at least 1 dose of the study drug in the on-treatment arm of the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once-daily O

215 The regular treatment arm of the study showed significantly improved

216 cryptococcal meningitis were randomized to 4 treatment arms of 2 weeks duration: group 1, AmB (0.7-1

217 CFA positive or negative) and allocated to 3 treatment arms of 6 weeks: (1) amoxicillin (1000 mg/d),

218 The inclusion of metformin in the treatment arms of cancer clinical trials is based on imp

219 ed 65 previous subjects from the ranibizumab treatment arms of the ANCHOR, MARINA, and HORIZON trials

220 e ranibizumab plus prompt and deferred laser treatment arms of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Rese

221 alyzed 1- and 3-year mortality rates in both treatment arms of the RCT to identify patient groups tha

222 teraction effects between each biomarker and treatment arm on survival were studied in a restricted m

223 rnating with soap and water every other day (treatment arm) or to bathing with soap and water daily (

224 2 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms over 4 years.

225 events or tolerability was not different by treatment arm (P = 0.99).

226 ume index were significantly associated with treatment arm (P=0.03) and changes in systolic (P=0.005)

227 80 in Wang Pha and was not different between treatment arms (P = .68).

228 0 (43%) subjects, without difference between treatment arms (P = .95).

229 ted with increased risk of mortality in both treatment arms, participants in the spironolactone arm h

230 al subcutaneous (s.c.) loading phase in each treatment arm, patients received s.c. maintenance therap

231 No significant interaction was observed with treatment arm (placebo IQ-OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.87

232 Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: placebo or inosine titrated to produce m

233 mean change scores were calculated for each treatment arm, plotted against publication year, and tes

234 in clinician-reported toxic effects between treatment arms, QOL analysis demonstrated a clinically m

235 ing for risk group assignment into different treatment arms, ranging from significant treatment reduc

236 Both treatment arms received standard anticoagulation.

237 Participants were randomized into 1 of 2 treatment arms receiving the following sequence of treat

238 atients were allocated to the most intensive treatment arm (regimen C), which included augmented Berl

239 o address these topics, we analyzed surgical treatment arm results from Gynecologic Oncology Group Pr

240 ome (combination of sepsis and death) in the treatment arm (risk ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval

241 By considering the 3 treatment arms separately, no difference in outcome was

242 .03; P = .035), and after adjusting for sex, treatment arm, sex-treatment arm interaction, pretreatme

243 internally developed risk models using both treatment arms should, in general, be preferred to model

244 All treatment arms showed marked behavioral improvements fro

245 Effects were similar between treatment arms, suggesting that women were attributing a

246 fferences between RBV induction and standard treatment arms (SVR in 72 of 169 patients [43%] vs 88 of

247 transplants were randomized to one of three treatment arms: tacrolimus extended-release (Astagraf XL

248 identify the reported ORR for each eligible treatment arm that had been presented publicly.

249 nters were randomized to a control arm and a treatment arm that received 3 doses of acidified nitrite

250 s that provide isoflavone aglycones in their treatment arm, the average effect was further significan

251 In the eculizumab treatment arm, the first 10 patients received a low-dose

252 Regardless of treatment arm, the number of Shh+ hepatocytes correlated

253 We pooled the treatment arms to examine the relationships between BP a

254 008, and May 27, 2010, to 1 of 3 neoadjuvant treatment arms: trastuzumab, lapatinib, or the combinati

255 RQOL score over time and differences between treatment arms using a linear mixed model.

256 Furthermore, HbA1c was decreased in both treatment arms (vildagliptin: -0.1%+/-0.3%; P=0.046 and

257 Major bleeding was also similar across the 3 treatment arms: warfarin 11 (2.98%/year), edoxaban high

258 s evenly distributed across the 3 randomized treatment arms: warfarin 7 (1.90%/year), edoxaban high d

259 antly, the improved outcome in the beva+CCNU treatment arm was not explained by an uneven distributio

260 of treatment failure, switching to the other treatment arm was possible.

261 teraction between the Hans algorithm and the treatment arm was significant for progression-free survi

262 ymptoms and higher functioning; the assigned treatment arm was unrelated to outcomes.

263 endothelial growth factor inhibition across treatment arms was 2% to 9% and 1% to 6%, respectively.

264 ive responders for CFP-10 and ESAT-6 between treatment arms was compared using mixed effects logistic

265 e, weight in the SRL-containing and SRL-free treatment arms was not different, but weight gain was si

266 y lipoprotein cholesterol difference between treatment arms was not significantly associated with the

267 No PFS difference between treatment arms was observed in Bcl-2/IgH-positive patien

268 In each treatment arm, we allowed simulated individuals to move

269 As the dose intensity was comparable in both treatment arms, we investigated whether the number of do

270 In both treatment arms, we observed significant trends for lower

271 Patients in the other treatment arm were allowed to heal by second intent.

272 Differences in rapid decline by treatment arm were apparent in the first year (odds rati

273 sted illness rates (illnesses per sample) by treatment arm were calculated using Poisson regression.

274 equential treatment arm and 682 in a control treatment arm were included.

275 s of insulin resistance after adjustment for treatment arm were seen.

276 Both treatment arms were assumed to result in 9 lines of visi

277 Treatment arms were balanced for most clinical and molec

278 Safety profiles of the treatment arms were comparable.

279 univariately by the Kaplan-Meier method, and treatment arms were compared by log-rank test.

280 mated by the cumulative incidence method and treatment arms were compared by using Gray's test.

281 that for several scales, differences between treatment arms were marginal.

282 Declines in bAs observed in the remaining treatment arms were not significantly different from tho

283 Differences in adherence between treatment arms were observed from 12 months onward (all

284 The baseline characteristics of the 2 treatment arms were similar (mean age, 61 years; 43% fem

285 Five-year results in both treatment arms were similar (overall survival 76% +/- 3%

286 In 189 randomly assigned patients, treatment arms were well balanced with regard to clinica

287 Treatment arms were well matched for baseline characteri

288 by Ki67 (P < 0.01) were demonstrated in the treatment arm, when compared with the control arm.

289 ter overall survival (OS), similarly in both treatment arms, whereas CNAs in MYC, ATM, CDK2, CDK4, an

290 We assessed the impact of treatment arm with a modified intention-to-treat analysi

291 with a significant difference in PFS between treatment arms with or without irinotecan.

292 There were no differences between treatment arms with postdose nausea, vomiting, or other

293 thy Study (ETDRS) letters or more across all treatment arms with PRN treatment.

294 icant differences were observed in the three treatment arms with sustained response rates of 77% in t

295 was not significantly different between the treatment arms, with medians of 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.5

296 Rates of adverse events were similar between treatment arms, with the exception of grades 1 to 2 neur

297 d 17.3% of enrolled patients in the ointment treatment arm withdrew because of drug-related skin irri

298 using Cox proportional hazards stratified by treatment arm within study.

299 PFS and OS did not differ between treatment arms within each MRD category.

300 For the purse-string treatment arm, wounds were sewn in circumferential fashi