ライフサイエンスコーパス: CRO

1 eported they would notify public health if a CRO was detected.

2 ive BSI, including 70 patients (9.7%) with a CRO-R pathogen and 651 patients (90.3%) with a ceftriaxo

3 t, 27 additional proteins were shared by all CRO-AP PEL cell lines.

4 nes from PEL (CRO-AP2, CRO-AP3, CRO-AP5, and CRO-AP6) were characterized by proteomics analysis of th

5 ble local access to trials; (2) sponsors and CROs should develop standards and protocols that accommo

6 ur established cell lines from PEL (CRO-AP2, CRO-AP3, CRO-AP5, and CRO-AP6) were characterized by pro

7 ished cell lines from PEL (CRO-AP2, CRO-AP3, CRO-AP5, and CRO-AP6) were characterized by proteomics a

8 numerous models can be entertained, the ARO-CRO model is uniquely structured to meet the demand for

9 ve approach centered on partnerships between CROs and university-based academic research organization

10 iperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) or ceftriaxone (CRO) and a group without ATB.

11 thogens of CRE infections using ceftriaxone (CRO), ertapenem (ETP), and meropenem (MEM) and demonstra

12 mycin (AZI) is recommended with ceftriaxone (CRO) for treatment of uncomplicated gonococcal urethriti

13 ary diagnostic laboratories (VDLs) to detect CROs are unknown.

14 Patients with first episode CRO-R Enterobacterales BSI had significantly greater pri

15 ties with the lower ZD criteria were 89% for CRO and 94% for CPO, respectively.

16 The direct MAC plate method criteria for CRO testing can be modified to balance the sensitivity a

17 To increase specificity, we screened for CRO in two high-risk wards using the direct MAC plate me

18 ate method demonstrates high sensitivity for CRO detection, but established zone diameter (ZD) criter

19 All methods had a specificity of >90% for CROs, and for CPOs, the specificity ranged from 85 to 98

20 pathways, we find that interest payments for CROs induce substantially more-ambitious near-term decar

21 nkey plate method was the most sensitive for CROs (95%), while chromID CARBA and the Check-Direct CPE

22 ludes an additional antimicrobial agent (ie, CRO 250 mg, intramuscular single dose).

23 ce of these proteins was confirmed by IHC in CRO-AP cell lines and in six other PEL cell lines, four

24 whether the scope of known mandates included CROs from veterinary sources.

25 tra of these BL/BLIs with respect to non-KPC CRO.

26 n important role in the treatment of non-KPC CRO.

27 e particularly helpful in regions with a low CRO prevalence.

28 ressing these gaps is critical to monitoring CRO incidence and trends in veterinary medicine, prevent

29 ioxide through 'carbon removal obligations' (CROs).

30 Most (17/21, 81%) VDLs were not aware of CRO reporting mandates, and some expressed uncertainty a

31 o balance the sensitivity and specificity of CRO while reducing the burden on clinical microbiology l

32 Recent reports of CROs in companion animals and veterinary settings sugges

33 of the biologically inactive oligonucleotide CRO-26.

34 abs were confirmed positive for at least one CRO and included 213 (3%) carbapenemase-producing organi

35 ization with carbapenem-resistant organisms (CRO) has yet to be established.

36 e producing, carbapenem resistant organisms (CRO), specifically Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases

37 e producing, carbapenem resistant organisms (CRO), specifically targeting the Klebsiella pneumoniae c

38 Carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) are an urgent public health threat and have been m

39 screened for carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) using several methods.

40 es (CRE) and carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs).

41 ciding which contract research organization (CRO) is best positioned to help meet their goals.

42 program, the contract research organization (CRO) that typically assists in executing the trial, regu

43 sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) use of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Stat

44 hey work in contract research organizations (CRO) or act as contract researchers, make clear statemen

45 ponsors and Contract Research Organizations (CROs) have increased the administrative burden.

46 nsferred to contract research organizations (CROs), validated, and implemented for the sample analysi

47 nesis, four established cell lines from PEL (CRO-AP2, CRO-AP3, CRO-AP5, and CRO-AP6) were characteriz

48 y and the presence of ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R) Enterobacterales bloodstream infections (BSI) fro

49 te debate between investigators and sponsors/CROs and selected real clinical scenarios that exemplify

50 ents (90.3%) with a ceftriaxone-susceptible (CRO-S) pathogen.

51 y greater among patients with CRO-R BSI than CRO-S BSI (P < .001).

52 We conclude that CROs will need to become an integral part of the global

53 animals and veterinary settings suggest that CROs are a One Health problem.

54 otic therapy was significantly longer in the CRO-R group (24 hours, interquartile range [IQR] 16-48)

55 chers publish only under the auspices of the CRO.

56 s, interquartile range [IQR] 16-48) than the CRO-S group (1 hour, IQR 0-2) (P < .001).

57 ty Monitoring Board activities), whereas the CRO provides infrastructure for efficient trial executio

58 re significantly greater among patients with CRO-R BSI than CRO-S BSI (P < .001).

59 Patients with CRO-R urinary pathogens prior to antibiotic therapy asse

60 prior antibiotic exposure than patients with CRO-S BSI and experienced significant delay of appropria