ライフサイエンスコーパス: treatment group

1 4-week and 8-week groups and 56 to the oral treatment group).

2 for 12 weeks beginning at week 16 (deferred treatment group).

3 re (two in the 8-week group; one in the oral treatment group).

4 nt group and 56 (80%) of 70 in the rituximab treatment group.

5 sing outcomes, and the funder were masked to treatment group.

6 , with a similar rate of cell death for each treatment group.

7 135.4+/-15.7 mm Hg (P<0.001) in the standard treatment group.

8 were significantly higher in the antibiotic treatment group.

9 ferent from those in BHD group and HB during treatment group.

10 gnificant safety issues were observed in any treatment group.

11 and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group.

12 ers assessing primary outcome were masked to treatment group.

13 Scale (SSQOL) significantly improved in the treatment group.

14 d repeat revascularization rates differed by treatment group.

15 e in the placebo group but not in the gammaT treatment group.

16 and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group.

17 and those receiving placebo in the deferred treatment group.

18 in P. gingivalis levels in the DHA + aspirin treatment group.

19 events against the mean on-treatment SBP per treatment group.

20 o difference in overall survival between the treatment groups.

21 MCs) were not significantly different in the treatment groups.

22 d 40 patients evenly distributed between two treatment groups.

23 ministered the modified probiotic than other treatment groups.

24 o 95.5% and ERRs >99.5% for all praziquantel treatment groups.

25 ostoperative year 1 were noted between the 2 treatment groups.

26 estes were significantly reduced in the PFOS treatment groups.

27 dverse events was generally balanced between treatment groups.

28 d serious adverse events was similar between treatment groups.

29 4T07 or 4T1 cell lines relative to the other treatment groups.

30 study met the primary endpoint in all three treatment groups.

31 cardiac dysfunction were infrequent in both treatment groups.

32 vel (CAL) gain in both statin and placebo/no treatment groups.

33 in 5-year disease-free survival between the treatment groups.

34 ith lower initial NEI-VFQ-25 scores for both treatment groups.

35 ts including overdose did not differ between treatment groups.

36 he events reported was similar between the 3 treatment groups.

37 discrimination of the shock context in both treatment groups.

38 eline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups.

39 alence of major congenital anomalies between treatment groups.

40 n expression between placebo and R-ketorolac treatment groups.

41 ated with these agents were compared between treatment groups.

42 he varying distribution of comorbidity among treatment groups.

43 ore for SGLT-2i initiation was used to match treatment groups.

44 tatistically significant differences between treatment groups.

45 d to test (PRGF+GTR) and control (GTR alone) treatment groups.

46 ticipants with IPF were randomly assigned to treatment groups.

47 latelets, or leukocytes were observed in the treatment groups.

48 ths did not differ significantly between the treatment groups.

49 entions did not differ significantly between treatment groups.

50 mergency department, were similar in the two treatment groups.

51 ice recognition system into one of the three treatment groups.

52 status at baseline, but were similar between treatment groups.

53 ety-related outcomes were similar across all treatment groups.

54 se events were comparably distributed in the treatment groups.

55 nt differences in adverse events between the treatment groups.

56 bsolute and -20% relative difference between treatment groups.

57 ions occurred with similar frequency in both treatment groups.

58 ed t tests were used for comparisons between treatment groups.

59 re used to compare OS of patients in the two treatment groups.

60 n CSF biomarker levels were observed between treatment groups.

61 to compare overall survival between the two treatment groups.

62 ot differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups.

63 eroids, and epinephrine was similar in the 2 treatment groups.

64 asure, also significantly favored the active-treatment groups.

65 h no significant differences between the two treatment groups.

66 acteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment groups.

67 es in postoperative HRQOL were found between treatment groups.

68 rt before filling positions in the following treatment groups.

69 change (standard deviation) at 1 year among treatment groups (-0.048 [0.44] bevacizumab, -0.053 [0.4

70 n the placebo group (mean difference between treatment groups -0.02; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.28, p=0.88).

71 five 20 mg/kg IV VRC01 doses every 4 weeks (treatment group 1 [T1], n = 20); eleven 5 mg/kg subcutan

72 titis were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups: 1) FDIS+MET; 2) FDIS+placebo; 3) SRP+M

73 tal of 63 patients were categorized into two treatment groups: 1) group 1: SRP + placebo gel and 2) g

74 ion defects were randomly allocated to three treatment groups: 1) SRP with placebo gel (group 1); 2)

75 , 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to a

76 weeks in 51 (91%) of 56 patients in the oral treatment group, 108 (94%) of 115 patients in the 4-week

77 survival also did not differ between the two treatment groups (11.0 months [95% CI 9.3-13.3] in the c

78 re enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitab

79 three 40 mg/kg IV VRC01 doses every 8 weeks (treatment group 2 [T2], n = 20).

80 tage two, patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (2:1) to receive the independent data m

81 rious adverse events was similar between the treatment groups (289 [93%] of 312 patients in the GP201

82 20); eleven 5 mg/kg subcutaneous (SC) VRC01 (treatment group 3 [T3], n = 20); placebo (placebo group

83 events were mild but higher in the standard treatment group (3 x 25 mg/kg) than in the single-dose t

84 It was lower in all active treatment groups (300 UA/day: 0.14, 1000 UA/day: 0.15, 2

85 roved CPT threshold was higher in the active treatment groups (300 UA/day: 73.9%; 1000 UA/day: 76.0%;

86 nts were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide an

87 joint treatment group, 47.2%; single active treatment group, 41.8%; and placebo group, 29.6%.

88 In the three active-treatment groups, 46% of the patients had compensated ci

89 hown by the following responder rates: joint treatment group, 47.2%; single active treatment group, 4

90 daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5.3% [95% CI -3.2% to 13.7%]).

91 er of all-cause deaths was the same for both treatment groups (59 deaths; relative risk [RR], 1.02; 9

92 creased risk of worsening PDR, regardless of treatment group (64% [high-risk PDR or worse] vs. 23% [m

93 -treat population did not differ between the treatment groups: 7.7 months (95% CI 6.8-8.9) in the tre

94 reduction in IgE allergen binding across all treatment groups (70 mug: 17.1%; 170 mug: 18.8%; 370 mug

95 re enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 749 to group A (chemotherapy alone) an

96 em, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment group A (150 mg oral vismodegib per day for 12

97 ated to study treatment (107 [94%] of 114 in treatment group A and 109 [97%] of 113 in treatment grou

98 nts were randomly assigned treatment, 116 in treatment group A and 113 in treatment group B.

99 nt events were noted in 22 (19%) patients in treatment group A and 19 (17%) patients in treatment gro

100 and assigned 37 patients to treatment (15 in treatment group A and 22 in treatment group B).

101 from baseline by 62.7% (95% CI 53.0-72.3) in treatment group A and 54.0% (43.6-64.4) in treatment gro

102 the acceptable safety of the 1000 mg dose in treatment group A and clinical activity of the 2000 mg d

103 e followed up patients during weeks 5-16 for treatment group A and during weeks 6-16 for treatment gr

104 ts were muscle spasms (four [4%] patients in treatment group A vs 12 [11%] in treatment group B), inc

105 m adverse events; one (pulmonary embolism in treatment group A) was possibly related to treatment.

106 ths did not differ significantly between the treatment groups (a score of 4 for ETV-CPC and 2 for ven

107 r 45 (7%) patients (equally balanced between treatment groups); a sensitivity analysis of overall sur

108 signed among three pulsed focused ultrasound treatment groups: (a) local tissue liquefaction via boil

109 In both treatment groups, all end points declined 3 months posto

110 All study staff and patients were masked to treatment group allocation.

111 events were observed between the control and treatment groups, although increased perfusion was obser

112 erious adverse events did not differ between treatment groups, although some specific adverse events

113 e-treatment group with those in the standard-treatment group among all participants and among partici

114 Five patients in the conventional treatment group and 1 patient in the continuous glucose

115 years or older were randomized, 1156 to the treatment group and 1147 to the placebo group.

116 ed for 58 (83%) of 70 patients in the CT-P10 treatment group and 56 (80%) of 70 in the rituximab trea

117 eight patients (46.3%) in the individualized treatment group and 92 (63.4%) in the standard treatment

118 east 1000 patient-years of follow-up in each treatment group and a minimum of 2 years average follow-

119 10% or more of the patients in either active-treatment group and at a frequency that was at least twi

120 rred in 10 of the 719 patients (1.4%) in the treatment group and in 13 of the 716 patients (1.8%) in

121 urred in 5 of the 731 patients (0.7%) in the treatment group and in 3 of the 720 patients (0.4%) in t

122 ety and efficacy endpoints for the immediate treatment group and placebo phase of the deferred treatm

123 2013, we randomly assigned 7028 patients to treatment groups and 7020 patients received treatment.

124 clinical variables were examined between the treatment groups and changes in mean HRQL scores over ti

125 found no evidence of differences between the treatment groups and control group in the trends of MELD

126 rate of corneal changes, differences between treatment groups and correlation with keratometry measur

127 viral kinetics were surprisingly slow in all treatment groups and could not reproduce the high SVR ra

128 pril 16, 2016, 833 patients were assigned to treatment groups and included in safety analyses (dapagl

129 hin 7 days of surgery was similar in THR-184 treatment groups and placebo groups (range, 74%-79%; P=0

130 to 70 years, including 19364 from New York (treatment group) and 22982 from California (comparison g

131 treatment group compared with the immediate treatment group, and no patients in the deferred treatme

132 took into account sample size and different treatment groups, and limited qualified studies.

133 es in composite scores were observed between treatment groups, and no significant change in scores we

134 rious infection was similar across the three treatment groups, and the rates of overall infection and

135 on with blood-pressure care was high in both treatment groups, and we found no significant difference

136 e events, regardless of causality, in either treatment group (any grade) were fatigue, alopecia, diar

137 e formation and resorption compared to other treatment groups as well as a unique profile of differen

138 nasal symptoms were worse in the intradermal treatment group, as measured based on daily (median diff

139 data for the treatment phase of the deferred treatment group, as well as HRQOL assessed using the 36-

140 Random treatment group assignment was stratified by plasma HIV-

141 Treatment group assignments were not masked.

142 tion of the participants were unaware of the treatment group assignments.

143 val did not differ significantly between the treatment groups at 10 years (65% [63-68] in the gemcita

144 postoperative cognitive performance between treatment groups at 3 months and 6 months.

145 ant differences were observed in ODS between treatment groups at days 84, 42, or 14.

146 with >/=2-step DRSS score improvement in all treatment groups at weeks 24, 52, 76, and 100.

147 d by 12 weeks of 150 mg vismodegib daily) or treatment group B (150 mg oral vismodegib per day for 24

148 treatment group A and during weeks 6-16 for treatment group B (no treatment was given during this fo

149 patients in treatment group A vs 12 [11%] in treatment group B), increased blood creatine phosphokina

150 in treatment group A and 109 [97%] of 113 in treatment group B).

151 treatment (15 in treatment group A and 22 in treatment group B).

152 n treatment group A and 54.0% (43.6-64.4) in treatment group B.

153 eatment, 116 in treatment group A and 113 in treatment group B.

154 n treatment group A and 19 (17%) patients in treatment group B.

155 nsplants were then matched between induction treatment groups based on the propensity score, reducing

156 ated with worse clinical rank scores in both treatment groups (beta, -96.60, P = .001 and beta, -0.02

157 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.97) in both treatment groups combined.

158 06 patients, 54 (61.4%) in the aggressive BP treatment group compared with 52 (61.2%) in the standard

159 operatively was significantly reduced in the treatment group compared with the control group [8.3% vs

160 aminotransferase elevations in the deferred treatment group compared with the immediate treatment gr

161 Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements i

162 Treatment groups did not differ in mean change in MADRS

163 25) in the CGM plus MDI group (adjusted mean treatment group difference: 83 min, 95% CI 17-149; p=0.0

164 At 24 weeks, the adjusted treatment-group difference in mean change in HbA1c level

165 These rates and treatment group differences appeared to be maintained at

166 the ranibizumab group had DR improvement; no treatment group differences were identified.

167 served cases (n = 456) with patients in each treatment group divided into tertiles based on each char

168 immediate-treatment group (ITG) or deferred-treatment group (DTG; placebo followed by active treatme

169 therapeutic outcome compared with all other treatment groups due to direct induction of thermal necr

170 Switch rates did not differ among the three treatment groups, even after accounting for dropout.

171 thdrawal from study were similar between the treatment groups, except for dyspepsia (ten [7%] in the

172 e of anti-drug antibodies was similar in the treatment groups (five [2%] of 268 patients in the GP201

173 ficant interaction between baseline FeNO and treatment group for every 10 ppb increase in baseline Fe

174 ed by more than 10 points at week 10 between treatment groups for diarrhoea (7.67 [SD 17.05] for plac

175 est was used to assess for differences among treatment groups for the mouse studies.

176 No significant differences were seen between treatment groups for the secondary three-point composite

177 was used to compare overall survival between treatment groups for this prospectively planned second i

178 There was no significant difference between treatment groups for those with BCDVAbetter-eye of 20/50

179 lan-Meier analyses to compare glucocorticoid treatment groups for time to stand from supine of 5 s or

180 of 4, to open-label treatment to one of four treatment groups: grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir

181 PV were prospectively randomized into 1 of 2 treatment groups: Group A received IVB (2.5 mg/0.1 mL) 1

182 The treatment group had an improved eGFR trajectory versus c

183 On post-transplant days 3-5, the treatment group had lower values compared to the control

184 eatment group and 92 (63.4%) in the standard treatment group had postoperative organ dysfunction by d

185 tment group, and no patients in the deferred treatment group had total bilirubin elevations.

186 ment group and placebo phase of the deferred treatment group have been reported previously.

187 oup compared with 52 (61.2%) in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio=0.94; 95% confidence inter

188 al tumor progression was observed in control treatment groups (i.e., no treatment or (177)Lu-DOTA-Bn

189 5 days posttransplant in a 1:1:1 ratio to 3 treatment groups: (i) everolimus (EVR) + reduced tacroli

190 care, which was significantly lower than the treatment group in the CHAMPION trial.

191 ients with NIU were randomized into one of 2 treatment groups in a ratio of 1:1.

192 In the active-treatment groups in both trials, the percentage of patie

193 revealed no significant differences between treatment groups in either country.

194 equal to 2 mmol/L but no difference between treatment groups in lactate greater than 2 mmol/L.

195 Differences within and between treatment groups in PROs were analysed by ANCOVA among p

196 milar TE event rate was observed between the treatment groups in stage 2 of the trial.

197 overall survival did not differ between the treatment groups in the entire study population (HR 0.93

198 bjective response rates were similar between treatment groups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 11

199 Overall survival did not differ between treatment groups in the overall patient population (medi

200 re was no significant difference between the treatment groups in the percentage of patients who had a

201 There were no differences between treatment groups in the proportion of grade 3 or 4 adver

202 ression-free survival did not differ between treatment groups in this subgroup (0.68, 0.46-1.01; p=0.

203 s between intensive and standard BP lowering treatment groups in total mortality rates, unfavorable o

204 We analyzed 12 treatment groups in trial on an ovarian cancer xenograft

205 ce remained intact in all other genotype and treatment groups, indicating that tau and LC degeneratio

206 different diagnosis frequencies between the treatment groups into account, the time to onset of diab

207 rial on Nov 5, 2014, was 49.6 months in each treatment group (IQR 41.5-62.2 for chemotherapy plus bev

208 egulator when the number of subjects in each treatment group is reasonably large.

209 for 12 weeks and randomized to the immediate-treatment group (ITG) or deferred-treatment group (DTG;

210 core was 58.5% (16.2%) and did not differ by treatment group (mastectomy only, 55.2% [15.0%]; mastect

211 In both treatment groups, most BCVA improvements occurred during

212 from month 6 to month 12 of the IIHTT in all treatment groups, most marked in the placebo group taper

213 e patients were randomly divided to the XXMT treatment group (n = 22) or the placebo group (n = 22) i

214 Treatment groups (n = 6 rats per group) included low-dos

215 h or without cetuximab (North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0147 trial) or adjuvant FOLFOX chemothe

216 ) and seven (13%) of 56 patients in the oral treatment group; none were drug related.

217 o significant differences were found between treatment groups on any other measures of drinking, alco

218 al adverse event was reported in each of the treatment groups (one [2%] patient with fatal acute lymp

219 In the pravastatin treatment group, one additional patient discontinued due

220 Of the three deaths in the deferred treatment group, one occurred during placebo treatment a

221 ti-CD47 monoclonal antibody (CD47mAb) in the treatment group or HTK solution in the control group (n

222 smission to mosquitoes were also lower in AL treatment groups (OR 0.06; 95% CI, 0.00-0.47, P < .01 at

223 100 mg once per day for 12 weeks (immediate treatment group) or placebo for 12 weeks followed by elb

224 a CD47 monoclonal antibody (CD47mAb) in the treatment group, or an isotype-matched immunoglobulin in

225 Time to first stroke event was compared by treatment group, overall and by type of event (ischemic

226 were not significantly different between the treatment groups ( P > .05).

227 increasing comorbidity burden regardless of treatment group (p < 0.001).

228 inflammation and angiogenesis markers in the treatment group (p < 0.05).

229 rall distribution of mRS scores favoring the treatment group (P = .18).

230 gitudinal increase in S/F was greater in the treatment group (p = 0.02) and independent of shock (p =

231 altered vascular kinetics in early and late treatment groups (p < 0.05).

232 change differed significantly from the other treatment groups (P = .016).

233 ymptoms was similar in placebo and icatibant treatment groups (P = .19 for the primary symptom and P

234 sk of CPK elevation was observed between the treatment groups (P = .504).

235 ore and incident CVD varied significantly by treatment groups (Pinteraction=0.010).

236 in the untreated group compared with either treatment group (PrOD, 0.3%; LDV/SOF, 1.4%; untreated co

237 italization was compared with adjustment for treatment group propensity.

238 kly subcutaneous injections, with the active treatment groups reaching assigned doses within 2, 3 and

239 The treatment group received 6 mo of eculizumab followed by

240 ssigned 63 CD patients to 4-, 8-, or 12-week treatment groups receiving oral GED-0301 (160 mg/day).

241 gnificant differences were found between the treatment groups regarding most other illicit substance

242 d 0% deaths were observed in the control and treatment group, respectively.

243 the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their as

244 antly longer hospital stay in the antibiotic treatment group (RR 0.3 days; 95% CI 0.07-0.53; P = 0.00

245 The prespecified primary outcome was each treatment group's mean change from baseline to week 24 (

246 Furthermore, rats in TNS-treatment group showed significantly reduced brain edema

247 Individuals in both treatment groups showed similar improvement in NEI-VFQ-2

248 This trial with three parallel treatment groups shows that INCS daily was not superior

249 Three of the treatment group subjects received low-dose (1 x 10(10) v

250 extent than silencing BmAce2, although both treatment groups suffered motor disability, slowed devel

251 Treatment groups T4 and T5 (n = 12 each) received three

252 hospitalization rates were 28% lower in the treatment group than in the control group (hazard ratio

253 ignificantly greater in three of four active-treatment groups than in the placebo group (2.7% [two of

254 In the crosslinking treatment group, the maximum K value decreased by 0.7 di

255 In the treatment group, the maximum keratometry value decreased

256 2 non-events were switched to events in the treatment group, the result would lose its statistical s

257 of treated patients and were similar across treatment groups; the most common adverse events (300 mg

258 iming of enrollment (which spanned 2 years), treatment group to which patients were randomized, and w

259 A total of 24% of the patients in each treatment group underwent allogeneic stem-cell transplan

260 The treatment group underwent standard CXL and the sham cont

261 The treatment group underwent standard CXL, and the sham con

262 PCWP during exercise was compared between treatment groups using a mixed-effects repeated measures

263 eak PCWP decreased by 3.5+/-6.4 mm Hg in the treatment group versus 0.5+/-5.0 mm Hg in the control gr

264 1 year occurred in 10 patients (8.5%) in the treatment group versus 1 (1%) in the control group (p =

265 was 123.2+/-13.2 mm Hg in the aggressive BP treatment group versus 135.4+/-15.7 mm Hg (P<0.001) in t

266 The treatment group (vitamin D3 + calcium group) received 20

267 re nasopharyngitis (18 [12%] patients in the treatment group vs 13 [9%] in the placebo group), infect

268 ean domain scores were compared between each treatment group vs active surveillance at each time poin

269 By 24 months, mean scores between treatment groups vs active surveillance were not signifi

270 Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, inves

271 Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patients, inve

272 y; P=0.73), and the cure rate in each active-treatment group was higher than that in the placebo grou

273 r 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in each treatment group was neutropenia (grade 3, 15 [21%] of 70

274 nt interaction between menopausal status and treatment group was observed for DFS ( P = .04) but not

275 obial testing of collected bile fluid in the treatment group was positive in 91.4%.

276 the rate of renal adverse event in intensive treatment group was significantly higher.

277 nce in the SF and 25(OH)D change between the treatment groups was 6.6 mug/L (95% CI: 1.4, 11.7 mug/L;

278 58 allocated placebo; the difference between treatment groups was not significant.

279 The time to first SRE between treatment groups was not statistically significantly dif

280 Propensity-matched analysis for treatment groups was performed to minimize selection bia

281 The composite outcomes of both treatment groups were also similar by SYNTAX score, dura

282 The three treatment groups were assumed to have equivalent efficac

283 Four treatment groups were defined: hyperthermia, ablation, h

284 non-randomly allocated to only dapagliflozin treatment groups were included in the safety analysis se

285 crease of PPW in ACZ eyes (64% vs 28%), both treatment groups were matched for all OCT features.

286 No significant differences between the treatment groups were noted when participants were strat

287 Pairwise comparisons between the 3 treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test wi

288 rates of malaria recrudescence in the three treatment groups were similar (log-rank test: chi(2)=0.2

289 Treatment groups were well balanced in terms of weight,

290 The treatment groups were well balanced with respect to age,

291 se probability-of-treatment weighting, the 2 treatments groups were balanced, and absolute standardiz

292 Roughly 800 of the tenants (treatment group) were subject to a change from having un

293 ntly fewer offspring compared with all other treatment groups, whereas cotreatment with mTOR inhibito

294 logy; these numbers were linked to different treatment groups which in turn were linked to treatment

295 ts (95% CI, 91%-99%) achieved an SVR in both treatment groups, which was significantly superior to th

296 defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who received at least one dose of study

297 We compared the scores in the intensive-treatment group with those in the standard-treatment gro

298 re were no significant differences among the treatment groups with regard to baseline features, intra

299 We compared treatment groups with the stratified log-rank test.

300 higher in the lithium/sertraline combination treatment group, without any treatment acceleration adva