ライフサイエンスコーパス: treatment efficacy

1 utcome and as a possible approach to monitor treatment efficacy.

2 lciparum in Southeast Asia threatens malaria treatment efficacy.

3 to other chemotherapeutic drugs and restore treatment efficacy.

4 ir levels in tissue are inversely related to treatment efficacy.

5 intrinsic mechanisms to profoundly influence treatment efficacy.

6 components should be targeted for optimal MM treatment efficacy.

7 is (days 7, 21, and 35) was used to evaluate treatment efficacy.

8 ine the dose effect on tumor vasculature and treatment efficacy.

9 ss conclusions were robust to uncertainty in treatment efficacy.

10 xplore the mechanisms that influence overall treatment efficacy.

11 carriers who did not, without differences in treatment efficacy.

12 ole of autocrine VEGF signaling on sorafenib treatment efficacy.

13 hronic pain disorders, rumination can impede treatment efficacy.

14 andomized participants needed to demonstrate treatment efficacy.

15 e used for routine monitoring and evaluating treatment efficacy.

16 target site accumulation, drug release, and treatment efficacy.

17 tm1 p.R69C mouse in hopes of finding greater treatment efficacy.

18 ed how renal neural network anatomy affected treatment efficacy.

19 event (pharyngitis) and 1 because of lack of treatment efficacy.

20 radients occur, with the potential to impact treatment efficacy.

21 rug resistance, and real-time readout on the treatment efficacy.

22 iretroviral therapy (ART) is used to monitor treatment efficacy.

23 e of this system can also be used to monitor treatment efficacy.

24 ncer drugs to the mitochondria might improve treatment efficacy.

25 treated with adalimumab is shown to diminish treatment efficacy.

26 g of circulating estrogens may be related to treatment efficacy.

27 of rheumatoid arthritis and in monitoring of treatment efficacy.

28 C, optimized=0.25 Tg C) to achieve the same treatment efficacy.

29 -stimulating cytokines are required for full treatment efficacy.

30 hrough inhibitory immunoglobulins that limit treatment efficacy.

31 s of therapies to neoplastic cells and blunt treatment efficacy.

32 te preclinical models for in vivo testing of treatment efficacy.

33 oncentration, which is associated with lower treatment efficacy.

34 emistry measures did not allow prediction of treatment efficacy.

35 e genotype at this locus may improve overall treatment efficacy.

36 ifficult and is a key factor for determining treatment efficacy.

37 isease (MRD) is increasingly used to monitor treatment efficacy.

38 a biomarker to assess staging/prognosis and treatment efficacy.

39 of RP patients and the monitoring of future treatment efficacy.

40 eatment and thus enables early prediction of treatment efficacy.

41 exposure therapy for PTSD with DCS enhances treatment efficacy.

42 T)), were evaluated as potential measures of treatment efficacy.

43 he goal of modeling tumor growth to evaluate treatment efficacy.

44 (18)F-FDG, were used to monitor bevacizumab treatment efficacy.

45 hods for assessing osteoporosis severity and treatment efficacy.

46 d for establishing a baseline for evaluating treatment efficacy.

47 s underlying eating disorders would increase treatment efficacy.

48 noninvasive, nondestructive way to evaluate treatment efficacy.

49 nce, baseline HIV tropism and antiretroviral treatment efficacy.

50 g many tissues, to get a complete picture of treatment efficacy.

51 modeled over the period of study to explore treatment efficacy.

52 aluable to investigate cellular response and treatment efficacy.

53 and control potential radiation toxicity or treatment efficacy.

54 HPV positivity was not associated with treatment efficacy.

55 free survival (RFS) is a powerful measure of treatment efficacy.

56 ans may provide a new metric for determining treatment efficacy.

57 ancer drugs is important for optimization of treatment efficacy.

58 lated gene expression for cancer biology and treatment efficacy.

59 t what effect anti-enzyme antibodies have on treatment efficacy.

60 s pose a possible concern for the outcome of treatment efficacy.

61 ral striatum, consistent with their putative treatment efficacy.

62 t some host-related factors may have limited treatment efficacy.

63 ing diseases with similar symptoms, and drug treatment efficacy.

64 lecular therapeutic intervention to increase treatment efficacy.

65 ese genes may provide biomarkers to evaluate treatment efficacy.

66 specific clonotypes as a surrogate marker of treatment efficacy.

67 athogenesis, and may help in predicting BVMD treatment efficacy.

68 ET measurements, allowing early detection of treatment efficacy.

69 t radiation energy within tumors and promote treatment efficacy.

70 lecular characteristics, which could improve treatment efficacy.

71 elopment and is often used as a landmark for treatment efficacy.

72 ints for determining patient eligibility and treatment efficacy.

73 sive evidence showed that HIV status altered treatment efficacy.

74 quired to protect existing drugs and enhance treatment efficacy.

75 infiltrates in tumors is crucial to improve treatment efficacy.

76 ents of the down-staging protocol as well as treatment efficacy.

77 a novel biomarker for clinical evaluation of treatment efficacy.

78 ing cancer drugs with significantly improved treatment efficacy.

79 should not be considered as a measure of the treatment efficacy.

80 ces to ensure prompt diagnosis and to assess treatment efficacy.

81 serve as an indirect functional indicator of treatment efficacy.

82 provide additional drug targets to increase treatment efficacy.

83 tics, recurrence monitoring, and therapeutic treatment efficacy.

84 mor Th1 balance can differentially shape the treatment efficacy.

85 compounds, assessment of disease status, and treatment efficacy.

86 tiinflammatory properties, thereby improving treatment efficacy.

87 of the immunologic changes that can lead to treatment efficacy.

88 le on long-term outcomes, comorbidities, and treatment efficacy.

89 rements for clinical trials for hypothesised treatment efficacies.

90 er multiple or rotating regimens to maintain treatment efficacies.

91 nitalium) AND (azithromycin OR zithromax OR [treatment efficacy]).

92 d overall were: physical side effects (83%); treatment efficacy (79%), new treatment drugs in develop

93 We compared treatment efficacy according to blood eosinophil percent

94 se, the quality of health-care delivery, and treatment efficacy across various disease settings.

95 nitial W&W could have deleterious effects on treatment efficacy after progression or relapse.

96 However, treatment efficacy against two isolates of P. digitatum

97 of which contribute greatly to the optimized treatment efficacy along with minimized side effects.

98 Main outcome measures consisted of treatment efficacy and adverse events.

99 is an urgent need for biomarkers to monitor treatment efficacy and anticipate outcome in patients wi

100 erm starvation or fasting can augment cancer treatment efficacy and can be effective in delaying canc

101 ocuses on three areas: biomarkers predicting treatment efficacy and cure of active tuberculosis, the

102 To determine true treatment efficacy and define the most appropriate retre

103 stic and prognostic information, quantifying treatment efficacy and designing better therapeutics.

104 We describe models of mechanisms of treatment efficacy and discuss recent treatment-specific

105 treatment with methylphenidate may decrease treatment efficacy and exacerbate symptoms while not und

106 delivery applications as a means to increase treatment efficacy and improve patient care.

107 oor national tuberculosis programs, reducing treatment efficacy and increasing the cost of treatment

108 Further study of treatment efficacy and its underlying neurocognitive mec

109 eing intensively investigated to improve the treatment efficacy and life qualities for diabetic patie

110 latin does not seem to substantially improve treatment efficacy and may increase toxicity and mortali

111 these markers could be used as indicators of treatment efficacy and might also be useful in identifyi

112 nanotube drug delivery is promising for high treatment efficacy and minimum side effects for future c

113 ted strategies could be exploited to improve treatment efficacy and outcome, contain drug-resistant s

114 pecific proteins or pathways) as measures of treatment efficacy and outcome.

115 However, treatment efficacy and patient longevity varied as a fun

116 with wider range of dose rate for improving treatment efficacy and reduction of side effects, a bett

117 istry of mCRC patients aiming to compare the treatment efficacy and safety according to the age categ

118 To achieve desired treatment efficacy and safety profiles, drug release kin

119 Chemoradiation-resistant cancers limit treatment efficacy and safety.

120 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Treatment efficacy and side effects.

121 ent genetic studies and studies of long-term treatment efficacy and side-effects have underscored the

122 CPMV also exhibited clear treatment efficacy and systemic antitumour immunity in o

123 er of these NK cells may allow monitoring of treatment efficacy and the likelihood of reservoir contr

124 eful in the study of breast cancer progress, treatment efficacy and the tailoring of individualized p

125 n will be important to evaluate antiintegrin treatment efficacy and to develop new therapeutic drugs

126 chronic hepatitis C patients to evaluate the treatment efficacy and to identify post-treatment seroma

127 Because an optimal balance between treatment efficacy and toxicity is of utmost importance

128 lized risk-benefit assessment that evaluates treatment efficacy and toxicity.

129 This implies needless loss of treatment efficacy and, possibly, lives.

130 sease risk as well as drug pharmacokinetics, treatment efficacy, and adverse drug reactions.

131 associated manifestations, natural history, treatment efficacy, and diagnostic procedures.

132 ic scarring, well-designed trials to confirm treatment efficacy, and further elucidation of molecular

133 ore positive than negative beliefs regarding treatment efficacy, and patients with few concerns about

134 predictors of treatment response, markers of treatment efficacy, and subtyping within disorders.

135 eterogeneity has implications for diagnosis, treatment efficacy, and the identification of drug targe

136 orbidity) as they pertain to cancer biology, treatment efficacy, and tolerance.

137 variant which significantly improved in vivo treatment efficacy (animal survival increased from 20% t

138 Overall, treatment efficacy appears to be determined by the aller

139 Data on treatment efficacy are strongest for atypical antipsycho

140 an L. guyanensis infection and its effect on treatment efficacy, as well as its correlation to sympto

141 had at least one dose of study drug and post-treatment efficacy assessment.

142 herapies and prognostic information on tumor treatment efficacy, assisting in the design of individua

143 Demonstration of treatment efficacy at later time points in the postnatal

144 This finding is consistent with treatment efficacy being polygenic and suggests that sin

145 on-to-treat analysis yielded a difference in treatment efficacy between groups of -27.0% (95% CI, -31

146 (P = .02), with a significant difference in treatment efficacy between the 2 groups (P < .001).

147 The difference in treatment efficacy between the 2 groups was not signific

148 s no statistically significant difference in treatment efficacy between treatment-naive patients (72%

149 Lastly, PV-267 showed treatment efficacy both in preventing experimental autoi

150 led trial data provide the best evidence for treatment efficacy, but results of these studies can be

151 prednisone, cyclophosphamide) to (1) enhance treatment efficacy by dose-dense drug delivery and (2) r

152 We assessed treatment efficacy by monitoring microfilaraemia, antige

153 Cancer treatment efficacy can be significantly enhanced through

154 lates the distribution of subclones, loss of treatment efficacy coincides with the re-expansion of th

155 to its remarkably low side effects and high treatment efficacy compared to conventional chemotheraph

156 [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]; treatment efficacy (COPD exacerbations, all-cause mortal

157 ), which included all patients with any post-treatment efficacy data.

158 orarily superior to PDT monotherapy, and the treatment efficacy decreased with time.

159 Primary outcome measure is treatment efficacy defined as the incidence of biopsy-pr

160 Treatment efficacy depends on accurate diagnosis at an e

161 -term abstinence rates, provides measures of treatment efficacy, describes the outcomes of new quit a

162 Treatment efficacy did not differ significantly by tumou

163 broth culture was examined for utility as a treatment efficacy end point.

164 isease risk, diagnostic test properties, and treatment efficacy; exploring a more complete array of a

165 This meta-analysis estimates treatment efficacy following treatment with 1 gram of az

166 e implications for individual differences in treatment efficacy for approaches that rely on reinforce

167 ming tumor hypoxia, thus leading to an ideal treatment efficacy for complete eradication of solid tum

168 tinovascular DeltaPO2 as a surrogate of drug treatment efficacy for diabetic retinopathy may be minim

169 pha2a) and ribavirin substantially increases treatment efficacy for genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C vi

170 there has been little recent improvement in treatment efficacy for major depressive disorder (MDD).

171 g all minimal targets only, increasing RS TB treatment efficacy from 94% to 99% reduced TB mortality

172 Decoupling treatment efficacy from the risk of resistance can be ac

173 However, we report that treatment efficacy has a clear impact on the population

174 rgeting TAK1 as a strategy to enhance cancer treatment efficacy has been studied in several malignanc

175 mall, and the mechanisms leading to this low treatment efficacy have not been clarified.

176 was most sensitive to the magnitude of ALVD treatment efficacy; higher treatment efficacy resulted i

177 1045642) within ABCB1 influences clopidogrel treatment efficacy; however, existing data are highly in

178 Innate and acquired resistance limits treatment efficacy; however, resistance mechanisms are n

179 ce adverse effects and improve the infection treatment efficacy.If the first-line therapy fails a sec

180 hesized TAK1 inhibitor, greatly enhanced Dox treatment efficacy in a panel of breast cancer cell line

181 ely strengthen future prospective studies of treatment efficacy in achalasia.

182 ssociation between polymorphisms at ITPA and treatment efficacy in chronic hepatitis C mediated by re

183 core might prove useful in the assessment of treatment efficacy in clinical trials.

184 a major treatment goal and a key measure of treatment efficacy in decompensated heart failure.

185 ement natural history studies and to monitor treatment efficacy in future clinical trials.

186 rapy and may be a useful surrogate marker of treatment efficacy in future studies.

187 hich might allow for the early prediction of treatment efficacy in HCV infection.

188 LISPOT is probably not a useful biomarker of treatment efficacy in LTBI.

189 e peritoneal cavity linearly correlated with treatment efficacy in mice (r(2)>0.8, p<0.001).

190 osis and enable more accurate assessments of treatment efficacy in migraine.

191 be a more useful outcome measure to monitor treatment efficacy in models of Alzheimer's disease comp

192 t clinical information on disease status and treatment efficacy in MS patients.

193 valid surrogate marker in the assessment of treatment efficacy in MS.

194 is one of the primary reasons for suboptimal treatment efficacy in NP delivery platforms.

195 il 30, 2014, which investigated antimalarial treatment efficacy in P. vivax malaria.

196 dies to track disease progression and assess treatment efficacy in patients and animal models of reti

197 DW MR imaging can aid in early monitoring of treatment efficacy in patients with advanced ovarian can

198 impact of combination treatment schedules on treatment efficacy in patients with preexisting resistan

199 cellular copper availability could influence treatment efficacy in platinum-based cancer chemotherapy

200 r of cancer risk and indicator of prevention/treatment efficacy in preclinical models and warrant val

201 utility of SNP data for predicting anti-TNF treatment efficacy in RA patients was performed in the c

202 might serve as a surrogate marker to assess treatment efficacy in randomized trials before clinical

203 of the Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of Nur

204 older patients and more accurately quantify treatment efficacy in this group.

205 lagen increases vascular damage and improves treatment efficacy in tumors with greater collagen conte

206 mines the research from 2011 through 2012 on treatment efficacy in two common vestibular disorders -

207 for monitoring disease progression and drug treatment efficacy in vivo.

208 Tumor size was monitored to determine treatment efficacy, indicated by survival, following var

209 Given concerns that dexrazoxane may reduce treatment efficacy, induce second cancers, and thus comp

210 High treatment efficacy is achieved using dose-dense chemothe

211 but in P. vivax infections the assessment of treatment efficacy is confounded by relapse from the dor

212 Yet the treatment efficacy is diverse and the mechanism behind i

213 aluated according to aggregate measurements, treatment efficacy is generally modest and differences i

214 suffering a large-vessel occlusion, although treatment efficacy is highly time-dependent.

215 Antidepressant treatment efficacy is low, but might be improved by matc

216 Because the information about treatment efficacy is more limited in an early analysis

217 hat can be used as surrogates for evaluating treatment efficacy is paramount to successful disease pr

218 However, the treatment efficacy is significantly variable in clinic o

219 One proposed method to extend treatment efficacy is to use a combination of multiple t

220 isk of repeated reactions, but the effect on treatment efficacy is unknown.

221 Treatment efficacy is, however, still limited, because t

222 lic AMP signaling has a key role in retinoid treatment efficacy: it enhances ATRA-induced maturation

223 with older age, more negative beliefs about treatment efficacy, less positive beliefs about chemothe

224 s should consider that even small changes in treatment efficacy may have considerable impact on TB-re

225 The primary end point was treatment efficacy measured as the response rate in pati

226 Treatment efficacy, measured by progression-free surviva

227 The base case used treatment efficacy measures reported in the randomized c

228 of prostate cancer, treatment distributions, treatment efficacy, mortality, health-related quality of

229 Nearly all of the treatment efficacy observed in the published literature

230 We evaluate treatment efficacies of two different radiation regimens

231 .75 (95% CI 2545-2759) per QALY gained for a treatment efficacy of 20% and euro4243 per QALY gained f

232 cacy of 20% and euro4243 per QALY gained for treatment efficacy of 50%.

233 Finally, the treatment efficacy of all heating strategies plus additi

234 genic process and may provide biomarkers for treatment efficacy of angiogenesis inhibitors.

235 de of CXCR4 signaling significantly enhanced treatment efficacy of anti-VEGFR2 treatment in both CRC

236 Since treatment efficacy of cisplatin- or carboplatin-based ch

237 2 neutralization can effectively improve the treatment efficacy of combined therapy with ADT and vacc

238 Advanced drug delivery systems (DDS) enhance treatment efficacy of different therapeutics in a dosage

239 al cells, and stroma cells would improve the treatment efficacy of gemcitabine in an orthotopic pancr

240 isms of action and provide insights into the treatment efficacy of new antitumor drugs.

241 In vitro modeling predicts only partial treatment efficacy of targeting subclonal mutations, and

242 Treatment efficacy of the adenoviral vectors released fr

243 measurement ability in the evaluation of the treatment efficacy of the MS patients with acute attack

244 ters may affect the disposition, and thereby treatment efficacy, of anticancer drugs in human head an

245 We found no significant heterogeneity for treatment efficacy on ischemic stroke for apixaban when

246 e this issue, we collected information about treatment efficacy on National Cancer Institute Cooperat

247 pathology provides an accurate assessment of treatment efficacy on the basis of the extent of residua

248 esent at an infection site can affect either treatment efficacy or immune function.

249 l strategy shows significant increase in the treatment efficacy over monotherapy in the experimental

250 Model outcomes were treatment efficacy, patient and payer cost, and health-r

251 informatics tasks, including prognostics and treatment efficacy predictions for better clinical decis

252 Varying treatment efficacy, price, and/or duration changed the p

253 We summarize treatment efficacy, quality of life, and adherence of th

254 Treatment efficacy quickly diminishes if not introduced

255 e benefit of available antiviral therapy, as treatment efficacy rapidly decreases following the clini

256 isms in NS5A (M28, Q30, L31, or Y93) reduced treatment efficacy; rates of SVR12 were 70% and 98% for

257 Active maintenance treatment efficacy relative to the control group decline

258 arker of artemisinin resistance) in reducing treatment efficacy remains controversial.

259 ch as mutations or neo-antigens, and maximal treatment efficacy requires that targeted alterations ar

260 (18)F-FDG revealed a treatment efficacy response only at day 10 after treatme

261 magnitude of ALVD treatment efficacy; higher treatment efficacy resulted in lower ICER.

262 g may have implications for interpreting the treatment efficacy results of in vitro experiments, in w

263 We systematically reviewed P. vivax malaria treatment efficacy studies to establish the global exten

264 In a concurrent treatment efficacy study, the target maintenance dose wa

265 p=1.7 x 10(-7), respectively) with decreased treatment efficacy (survival rates 0.38 [95% CI 0.25-0.5

266 ediated changes in cell signaling related to treatment efficacy, the delivery and histological locali

267 ng the importance of tumor type and stage on treatment efficacy, the impact of fatal thromboembolic e

268 er trial that suggested that Ca/Mg decreased treatment efficacy; these data were subsequently found t

269 To assess treatment efficacy, this work paired predicted breakthro

270 as a biomarker for detection of bone cancer treatment efficacy, thus warranting clinical evaluation.

271 impact of antimicrobial therapies, allowing treatment efficacy to be both assessed and optimized?

272 nt uptake was more effective than increasing treatment efficacy to reduce HCV incidence and prevalenc

273 he medical literature (biopsy disutility and treatment efficacy) to determine the optimal "base case"

274 t patients that recur will perish due to low treatment efficacy, toxicity, or frailty issues.

275 s a critical site to consider when assessing treatment efficacy, transmission competence and the impa

276 differences with respect to drug delivery or treatment efficacy using vismodegib.

277 scale, allowing investigators to explore how treatment efficacy varies as the biomarker values contin

278 Mean duration of treatment efficacy was 127 days (SD 37) with a 5% physic

279 Treatment efficacy was assessed by baseline risk for CV

280 The treatment efficacy was assessed by evaluating eosinophil

281 Treatment efficacy was assessed comparing LAE rates duri

282 Treatment efficacy was assessed for the entire populatio

283 Treatment efficacy was assessed on the basis of Mycobact

284 95% CI, 0.7-3.4]), suggesting that worsening treatment efficacy was best explained by decreasing host

285 logy was more often negative (14% vs 1%) and treatment efficacy was better (51% regression after 1-ye

286 Treatment efficacy was determined as the standardized me

287 Interestingly, the degree of treatment efficacy was inversely proportional to the bas

288 Treatment efficacy was measured as microbial cure at las

289 Treatment efficacy was not affected by simultaneous trea

290 injection (PI), however the duration of this treatment efficacy was not established.

291 Treatment efficacy was not jeopardized since 3-month dis

292 In virtual NOD mice, treatment efficacy was predicted to depend primarily on

293 Etoposide treatment efficacy was proven by ex vivo anticaspase 3 s

294 n established early surrogate marker of drug treatment efficacy, was measured by MRI during a 2-minut

295 various timepoints as an early predictor of treatment efficacy when designing phase 2 studies before

296 effective molecular treatment strategies, as treatment efficacies will reflect the molecular variegat

297 d to investigate contribution of DWMR to the treatment efficacy with ADC values which were measured i

298 To determine treatment efficacy with regard to incidence and time to

299 We assessed the patients' perceptions of treatment efficacy with the Quality of Life in Essential

300 Accurate assessment of treatment efficacy would facilitate clinical trials of n