ライフサイエンスコーパス: immunosuppressive drug

1 phenolate mofeteil (CellCept), a widely used immunosuppressive drug.

2 olite of mycophenolate mofetil, an effective immunosuppressive drug.

3 mmatory process can be partially reversed by immunosuppressive drugs.

4 ALL) following treatments including numerous immunosuppressive drugs.

5 ematological or inflammatory conditions, and immunosuppressive drugs.

6 T-cell subsets with variable sensitivity to immunosuppressive drugs.

7 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) are well established immunosuppressive drugs.

8 induce tolerance, allowing for withdrawal of immunosuppressive drugs.

9 estioned how these processes are affected by immunosuppressive drugs.

10 ts and immune cells with or without GABA and immunosuppressive drugs.

11 ejected and 41 successfully discontinued all immunosuppressive drugs.

12 tification of targets for the development of immunosuppressive drugs.

13 4 (61%) patients who failed treatment on >=2 immunosuppressive drugs.

14 que tool to evaluate the biologic effects of immunosuppressive drugs.

15 of bioequivalence might prevail with generic immunosuppressive drugs.

16 he absence of potent, specific, and nontoxic immunosuppressive drugs.

17 ined for at least 6 weeks without the use of immunosuppressive drugs.

18 bronchopulmonary system, and chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drugs.

19 human diabetes is limited by the toxicity of immunosuppressive drugs.

20 cancer reflects exposure to sunlight and to immunosuppressive drugs.

21 nd alloantigen in the presence or absence of immunosuppressive drugs.

22 than 28 months since discontinuation of all immunosuppressive drugs.

23 en in historical dogs given two postgrafting immunosuppressive drugs.

24 eved through the long-term administration of immunosuppressive drugs.

25 struction of beta cells without the need for immunosuppressive drugs.

26 aPL, carotid vascular disease, or the use of immunosuppressive drugs.

27 everal toxic effects associated with current immunosuppressive drugs.

28 lood donors and 16 RA patients not receiving immunosuppressive drugs.

29 None of the patients were receiving immunosuppressive drugs.

30 cocorticoids and, in 13 patients, additional immunosuppressive drugs.

31 hazards associated with the long-term use of immunosuppressive drugs.

32 ar treatment of glucocorticoid combined with immunosuppressive drugs.

33 o often confounded by the concomitant use of immunosuppressive drugs.

34 erapy (n = 11) or combined with conventional immunosuppressive drugs.

35 inhibit neointimal proliferation by eluting immunosuppressive drugs.

36 lograft rejection in the absence of systemic immunosuppressive drugs.

37 s, via dietary management, or as adjuncts to immunosuppressive drugs.

38 muscle actin Abs, and disease remission with immunosuppressive drugs.

39 es of triptolide as leads for anticancer and immunosuppressive drugs.

40 ant programs and use of inexpensive, generic immunosuppressive drugs.

41 d with better serologic responses than other immunosuppressive drugs.

42 unwanted immune responses often use broadly immunosuppressive drugs.

43 Of 85 immunocompromised patients, 65 used immunosuppressive drugs, 13 had received stem cell trans

44 th steroids (97% versus 72%; P < 0.0001) and immunosuppressive drugs (66% versus 37%; P = 0.0001) was

45 The cytotoxic and immunosuppressive drugs administered pretransplant to el

46 /or exacerbating flares of IBD and/or IBD or immunosuppressive drugs administered to patients with IB

47 parate allograft survival without continuous immunosuppressive drug administration.

48 Data on how different immunosuppressive drugs affect cytomegalovirus (CMV)-spe

49 Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are essential immunosuppressive drugs after renal transplantation.

50 ribute to the various unexplained effects of immunosuppressive drugs already being used in the clinic

51 the disease generally can be controlled with immunosuppressive drugs, ANCA-associated vasculitis has

52 ble allograft function while taking a single immunosuppressive drug and no evidence of acute or chron

53 te kidney graft loss despite improvements in immunosuppressive drugs and a reduction in acute T cell-

54 Improvements in immunosuppressive drugs and ancillary care have led to o

55 infusion of donor hematopoietic cells, then immunosuppressive drugs and antimicrobial approaches to

56 ids (GC) are widely used as antiinflammatory/immunosuppressive drugs and antitumor agents in several

57 nction and the immunologic effects of common immunosuppressive drugs and available studies reporting

58 the infusion; Patient 2 was pretreated with immunosuppressive drugs and did not have this complicati

59 Future efforts to withdraw immunosuppressive drugs and establish a tolerant state w

60 riteria, improved surgical techniques, novel immunosuppressive drugs and protocols, new rejection sur

61 ocystis, mTOR inhibitors used as maintenance immunosuppressive drugs and the administration of cortic

62 corticosteroids and at least 1 conventional immunosuppressive drug, and in most cases to other biolo

63 recipients, partly because of the effects of immunosuppressive drugs, and are associated with adverse

64 , serum creatinine, lipids, trough levels of immunosuppressive drugs, and daily proteinuria were also

65 all memory B cell subpopulations, number of immunosuppressive drugs, and dose of tacrolimus during t

66 w donors at least 6 months after HCT without immunosuppressive drugs, and grafts in 4 dogs are surviv

67 us of Janus kinase inhibitors-a new class of immunosuppressive drugs-and the advantages and disadvant

68 results from clinical trials using different immunosuppressive drugs; and (iii) describe our efforts

69 FTY720, an immunosuppressive drug approved for the treatment of mul

70 ited immune deficiencies as well as those on immunosuppressive drugs are at high risk for infections

71 Generic immunosuppressive drugs are available in Europe, Canada,

72 In addition, many of the immunosuppressive drugs are diabetogenic.

73 AI) diseases are difficult to treat, because immunosuppressive drugs are nonspecific, produce high le

74 The registration criteria for generic immunosuppressive drugs are often criticized.

75 Combinations of immunosuppressive drugs are routinely used post-transpla

76 stem in patients treated with new generation immunosuppressive drugs are still poorly documented.

77 High-dose steroids or other immunosuppressive drugs are used to treat GVHD that have

78 hout the potentially confounding variable of immunosuppressive drugs, are in agreement with the major

79 nsplant neutropenia (PTN), mainly related to immunosuppressive drugs as mycophenolic acid (MPA) and a

80 with stable graft function who are receiving immunosuppressive drugs as well as healthy controls.

81 se in almost all patients without additional immunosuppressive drugs, as seen in the Study of Thymogl

82 record and a Medicare pharmacy claim for an immunosuppressive drug at transplant discharge and 6 mo

83 th dupilumab without concomitant use of oral immunosuppressive drugs at five different time points (b

84 Data regarding patient demographics, use of immunosuppressive drugs, biologic agents, and reason for

85 udies have indicated that the use of certain immunosuppressive drugs can delay the reconstitution of

86 mmune system via lymphocyte depletion and/or immunosuppressive drugs can have off-target effects, a l

87 nto DNA by one of the most widely prescribed immunosuppressive drugs, causes DNA single- and double-s

88 operational tolerance, defined as successful immunosuppressive drug cessation maintained for at least

89 Despite the use of immunosuppressive drugs, chronic allograft rejection rem

90 Monitoring of creatinine and immunosuppressive drug concentrations, such as tacrolimu

91 ment of PG typically starts with fast-acting immunosuppressive drugs (corticosteroids and/or cyclospo

92 Discontinuation of immunosuppressive drugs could lessen this burden, but th

93 Extending immunosuppressive drug coverage under Medicare from the

94 rovement in transplant survival by extending immunosuppressive drug coverage was estimated from a coh

95 Rapamycin is an immunosuppressive drug currently used in different clini

96 ome of the most potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs currently in clinical use.

97 The widely used immunosuppressive drug cyclosporin A (CsA) inhibited DAF

98 two groups based on their sensitivity to the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporin A (CsA).

99 ies a binding pocket on PP2B utilized by the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporin.

100 ent to identify yeast protein targets of the immunosuppressive drug, cyclosporin A (CsA).

101 of the CA residue at G89 or P90 or with the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine (CsA), reduces HIV-1

102 The immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine A (CsA) and its noni

103 cis-trans isomerases and are targets of the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine A (CsA).

104 Treatment with the immunosuppressive drug cyclosporine abolished H60-specif

105 reonine phosphatase that is inhibited by the immunosuppressive drugs cyclosporine and FK506.

106 We confirm that the immunosuppressive drugs cyclosporine and tacrolimus also

107 Nephrotoxicity side effect of the immunosuppressive drug, cyclosporine A (CsA), can be a m

108 e proteins mostly known as receptors for the immunosuppressive drug, cyclosporine A.

109 to evaluate the effects of two commonly used immunosuppressive drugs, cyclosporine A (CsA) and siroli

110 Although immunosuppressive drugs, cytokines, costimulatory molecu

111 llular genetic changes to the enhancement of immunosuppressive drug delivery.

112 Treatment at this stage with the immunosuppressive drug dexamethasone produced patent inf

113 M-MuLV-challenged mice were treated with the immunosuppressive drug dexamethasone, activation and exp

114 ive and memory CD4(+) T cells induced by the immunosuppressive drugs dexamethasone and vitamin D3.

115 achieving target blood concentrations of the immunosuppressive drugs during the critical early period

116 Eliminating the need for nephrotoxic immunosuppressive drugs during the early posttransplant

117 Since clinically approved immunosuppressive drugs (e.g., cyclosporin A, FK506) pos

118 Two score-type CEPs were defined for immunosuppressive drug efficacy (7 items) and for toxici

119 ant care, and assessment of immune response, immunosuppressive drug efficacy, and graft function as d

120 Immunosuppressive drugs (especially corticosteroids and

121 pse (HR = 0.32, P = .05) compared with other immunosuppressive drugs except for rituximab.

122 ed after kidney transplantation since infant immunosuppressive drug exposure via breastmilk is extrem

123 ced major immune insults, particularly prior immunosuppressive drug exposure.

124 serologic response rates were high doses of immunosuppressive drugs, fewer hepatitis A vaccinations,

125 atient visits and number of months for which immunosuppressive drugs fills were recorded were similar

126 r glycaemic lability, or who already receive immunosuppressive drugs for a kidney transplant.

127 tolerance to islet transplants without using immunosuppressive drugs for long terms.

128 ids that reduce inflammation and are used as immunosuppressive drugs for many diseases.

129 Large animals treated with immunosuppressive drugs for preclinical experiments of t

130 methods to advance the development of novel immunosuppressive drugs for use in solid organ transplan

131 : systemic therapy (corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs) for at least 3 months before en

132 lymphoid organs and is downregulated by the immunosuppressive drug FTY720.

133 bitor, has been proposed as liver transplant immunosuppressive drug, gaining wide interest also for t

134 ulating immune ontogeny post-transplant, the immunosuppressive drugs given to prevent graft versus ho

135 d as all cases of new hyperglycemia, then no immunosuppressive drug group demonstrated an increased r

136 ry biliary cirrhosis (PBC) with conventional immunosuppressive drugs has been relatively disappointin

137 Complete cessation of immunosuppressive drugs has been successfully accomplish

138 arising from the interplay of the virus and immunosuppressive drugs, has emerged as a new challenge

139 se, neutropenic patients and those receiving immunosuppressive drugs have a higher incidence of invas

140 ddition to ischemia and immunologic factors, immunosuppressive drugs have been suggested as a possibl

141 These data indicate that immunosuppressive drugs have differential effects on NK

142 estinal tract (GI) for which treatments with immunosuppressive drugs have significant side-effects.

143 courses at modest doses before the standard immunosuppressive drugs have taken effect.

144 s, together with more judicious use of other immunosuppressive drugs, have resulted in marked improve

145 By minimizing the use of immunosuppressive drugs, higher risk patients may hazard

146 in 2011, the first approval of a maintenance immunosuppressive drug in more than a decade.

147 nhibitor, rapamycin, is currently used as an immunosuppressive drug in transplant patients, it has be

148 en generic and brand-name formulations of an immunosuppressive drug in transplant recipients.

149 ens included systemic corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressive drugs in 44% of patients, and 84% of p

150 organ transplantation and can act as potent immunosuppressive drugs in a variety of different disord

151 The pharmacokinetics (PK) studies of immunosuppressive drugs in healthy volunteers, rarely, i

152 GO) guidelines recommend limiting the use of immunosuppressive drugs in idiopathic membranous nephrop

153 elp clinicians customize the prescription of immunosuppressive drugs in individual patients but also

154 ical trials designed to minimize or withdraw immunosuppressive drugs in kidney, liver, and lung trans

155 The contribution of disease activity and immunosuppressive drugs in lymphoma development is still

156 tration of generic drugs in general, and for immunosuppressive drugs in particular.

157 ence studies comparing original with generic immunosuppressive drugs in patients are limited, especia

158 re instituted, caution in the use of generic immunosuppressive drugs in solid organ transplantation i

159 The scale of benefit of immunosuppressive drugs in suppressing clinical nephriti

160 rovide a rationale for the increasing use of immunosuppressive drugs in the treatment of MS.

161 demonstrated by the lack of effectiveness of immunosuppressive drugs in this model.

162 The wide use of antibiotics and immunosuppressive drugs in transplanted patients can hav

163 to reduce patient risk such as oral or less immunosuppressive drugs, in May and June, 2020.

164 Immunophilins are defined as receptors for immunosuppressive drugs including cyclosporin A, FK506,

165 ucous membrane pemphigoid typically involves immunosuppressive drugs, including biologic therapy, as

166 Posttransplant immunosuppressive drugs incompletely control GVHD and in

167 s lesions includes glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive drugs; individuals not responding with

168 Our results confirm an earlier report that immunosuppressive drugs inhibit exocytosis in CTLs stimu

169 provide new understanding of how widely used immunosuppressive drugs interfere with essential process

170 esign guidelines on how to implement generic immunosuppressive drugs into clinical practice.

171 transplantation tolerance in the absence of immunosuppressive drugs is a rarely achieved goal.

172 Lack of adherence to immunosuppressive drugs is a risk factor for development

173 e tolerance to allografts so that the use of immunosuppressive drugs is avoided.

174 ction to permit minimization or cessation of immunosuppressive drugs is one of the key research goals

175 of immune rejection or the need for powerful immunosuppressive drugs is the 'holy grail' of transplan

176 nhibition of these lytic immune responses by immunosuppressive drugs is unknown.

177 ical therapy with tacrolimus, an anti-T-cell immunosuppressive drug, is highly effective in preventin

178 e of donor grafts, with the need for minimal immunosuppressive drugs, is a major transplantation goal

179 ry ligand of cyclophilin A, is a widely used immunosuppressive drug, it causes arterial hypertension

180 e two recently reported alternate targets of immunosuppressive drugs, JNK is not required for lytic g

181 Despite the effectiveness of immunosuppressive drugs, kidney transplant recipients st

182 ear in allogeneic recipients who remained on immunosuppressive drugs led to a further reduction in VZ

183 ver, nonadherence is the main determinant of immunosuppressive drug level variability.

184 e loss of tolerance, as can be achieved with immunosuppressive drugs like cyclosporin, arrests the di

185 Patients taking immunosuppressive drugs, like cyclosporine A (CsA), that

186 osuppressive therapy by lowering exposure to immunosuppressive drugs, likely resulting in lower drug

187 Treatment with immunosuppressive drugs lowered the risk of visual loss.

188 that some liver recipients who cease taking immunosuppressive drugs maintain allograft function, sug

189 Immunosuppressive drugs may be required to treat severe

190 hyperparathyroidism, hypovitaminosis D, and immunosuppressive drugs may have influenced osteoblast f

191 Prior investigations suggest that systemic immunosuppressive drugs may improve insulin resistance a

192 Immunologic monitoring to tailor immunosuppressive drugs might prevent alloreactivity and

193 acuity or those treated with steroid-sparing immunosuppressive drugs more often had an underlying ass

194 A combination of different immunosuppressive drugs most severely impaired the immun

195 The immunosuppressive drug mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is us

196 ngus Penicillium brevicompactum produces the immunosuppressive drug mycophenolic acid (MPA), which is

197 ast 1 year or longer if patients remained on immunosuppressive drugs (n = 586).

198 Conventional regimens of immunosuppressive drugs often do not prevent chronic rej

199 tro effects of individual standard and novel immunosuppressive drugs on a broad range of CMV-specific

200 rview of the molecular effect of the various immunosuppressive drugs on B cell biology.

201 all, our data point to a limited efficacy of immunosuppressive drugs on CD8+ T cell-mediated and NK c

202 Although the effects of various immunosuppressive drugs on T cells and B cells have been

203 We investigated the impact of immunosuppressive drugs on the prevalence of BKV replica

204 allenge because of the inhibitory effects of immunosuppressive drugs on the virus-specific T-cell res

205 arding the influence of current and emerging immunosuppressive drugs on Treg homeostasis, stability,

206 of cyclosporine or tacrolimus, the principal immunosuppressive drugs, on Treg proliferation and funct

207 , whereas 8 and 13 patients received various immunosuppressive drugs or symptomatic measures alone, r

208 Immunosuppressive drugs other than cyclosporine demonstr

209 ctiveness of extending Medicare coverage for immunosuppressive drugs over the duration of transplant

210 ory celiac disease resistant to steroids and immunosuppressive drugs presented to our hospital for a

211 The immunosuppressive drug rapamycin has been shown to prefe

212 on, and in contrast to what we expected, the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin has immunostimulatory e

213 sis confirmed that inhibition of mTOR by the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin suppressed antiviral an

214 Only mTORC1 is directly inhibited by the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin.

215 e ternary complex formed with FKBP12 and the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin; however, there are sig

216 Finally, we show that immunosuppressive drug regimens can mitigate the anti-hE

217 Non-HIV-infected individuals taking immunosuppressive drug regimens targeting T cell activat

218 T1D) such as shortage of donor cells, use of immunosuppressive drugs remain as major challenges.

219 natures (for HDAC inhibitors, estrogens, and immunosuppressive drugs, respectively).

220 Whether new immunosuppressive drugs result in an improved health-rel

221 iple cadaveric donors simultaneously receive immunosuppressive drugs - results in lymphopenia that is

222 in, providing further rationale for why this immunosuppressive drug should be used in conjunction wit

223 The new immunosuppressive drugs should undergo clinical trial be

224 All immunosuppressive drugs significantly inhibited TEC-indu

225 nd safety are not known; consequently, older immunosuppressive drugs still play an important role in

226 have their own toxicities and interact with immunosuppressive drugs such as calcineurin inhibitors.

227 he pharmacotherapy of chronic HP consists of immunosuppressive drugs such as corticosteroids, with an

228 the mechanism of action of several existing immunosuppressive drugs, such as calcineurin inhibitors

229 There was no correlation between immunosuppressive drug (tacrolimus) dose or trough level

230 This increased risk is linked to the immunosuppressive drugs taken by these patients to modul

231 ly serve as a promising and highly selective immunosuppressive drug target in autoimmunity and organ

232 We investigated the effect of immunosuppressive drugs targeting this pathway, the JAK

233 Rapamycin (Rapa), an immunosuppressive drug that acts through mammalian targe

234 Rapamycin is an immunosuppressive drug that binds simultaneously to the

235 We found here that rapamycin, an immunosuppressive drug that inhibits the kinase mTOR, pr

236 Tacrolimus is a widely used immunosuppressive drug that inhibits the phosphatase cal

237 Cyclosporine is an immunosuppressive drug that is widely used to prevent or

238 The immunosuppressive drugs that are administered to graft r

239 Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are immunosuppressive drugs that are used widely to prevent

240 therefore represent a therapeutic target of immunosuppressive drugs that could specifically dampen l

241 after HCT requiring continued treatment with immunosuppressive drugs that increases their risks for s

242 rt has been devoted to the identification of immunosuppressive drugs that promote bone formation in a

243 n mice treated with subtherapeutic levels of immunosuppressive drugs, the reporter signals in urine c

244 s undermined by variables such as the use of immunosuppressive drugs, their toxicity to the graft, de

245 ation (HBVr) is an important complication of immunosuppressive drug therapy (ISDT).

246 llars to provide full coverage for life-long immunosuppressive drug therapy after renal transplantati

247 Receiving immunosuppressive drug therapy at the time of presentati

248 In contrast, use of immunosuppressive drug therapy did not increase such ris

249 Given the large numbers of individuals on immunosuppressive drug therapy for inflammatory disease,

250 Immunosuppressive drug therapy has been identified as on

251 However, additional immunosuppressive drug therapy is required to prevent re

252 Immunosuppressive drug therapy lowered the risk of visua

253 lness severity, race/ethnicity, obesity, and immunosuppressive drug therapy.

254 ameliorated by stem-cell transplantation or immunosuppressive drug therapy.

255 h human immunodeficiency virus or AIDS or on immunosuppressive drug therapy.

256 ents and might be a potential tool to tailor immunosuppressive drug therapy.

257 for addition of steroids or other adjunctive immunosuppressive drugs to CsA monotherapy.

258 Improving localized delivery of immunosuppressive drugs to inflamed tissue in a non-inva

259 er, require the continuous administration of immunosuppressive drugs to prevent graft rejection, and

260 er with knowledge on the capacity of current immunosuppressive drugs to target this process, may open

261 the use of new biological and non-biological immunosuppressive drugs to treat severe and steroid refr

262 Death related to graft loss or immunosuppressive drug toxicity was attributed a maximum

263 the lack of autoimmunity, alloimmunity, and immunosuppressive drug toxicity, highlighting the potent

264 s is limited by long-term graft dysfunction, immunosuppressive drug toxicity, need for multiple donor

265 s in a patient with a history of a long-term immunosuppressive drug treatment due to kidney transplan

266 Immunosuppressive drug treatment or enhancement of regul

267 The effects of these immunosuppressive drugs, Treg cells, or both also were t

268 centers on three continents were the largest immunosuppressive drug trials ever attempted and the fir

269 In spite of maintenance treatment with immunosuppressive drugs, tubulitis still occurs and can

270 Immunosuppressive drug use has changed little, except fo

271 topical corticosteroid use, and concomitant immunosuppressive drug use.

272 Sirolimus (rapamycin) is an immunosuppressive drug used in transplantation.

273 rovides valuable insight into the effects of immunosuppressive drugs used after HSCT on resting and a

274 The immunosuppressive drugs used for treating mucous membran

275 of the safety concerns related to the use of immunosuppressive drugs used in inflammatory bowel disea

276 s (antithymocyte globulin [ATG]) are popular immunosuppressive drugs used to prevent or treat organ o

277 The oral immunosuppressive drugs used were mycophenolate and cycl

278 Immunosuppressive drugs used were tacrolimus (a calcineu

279 Use of immunosuppressive drugs was associated with a reduced ri

280 th increased risk of vision loss, and use of immunosuppressive drugs was associated with reduced risk

281 Mycophenolic acid (MPA), an immunosuppressive drug, was found to potently inhibit en

282 cipients (TOL), those undergoing prospective immunosuppressive drug weaning (PW) or maintenance immun

283 s: operationally tolerant (TOL), prospective immunosuppressive drug weaning, and maintenance immunosu

284 Many immunosuppressive drugs were developed before the identi

285 Corticosteroids and immunosuppressive drugs were largely ineffective.

286 No drug-drug interactions with immunosuppressive drugs were reported, and no episode of

287 tment for autoimmune diseases often includes immunosuppressive drugs whereas neutralization of IL-1be

288 Cyclosporine A (CsA) is an immunosuppressive drug which has been widely used to pre

289 treatments for autoimmune arthritis rely on immunosuppressive drugs, which have side effects.

290 gely based on the use of systemically acting immunosuppressive drugs, which invariably cause severe s

291 significant potential of subglutinol A as an immunosuppressive drug with dose-dependent osteogenic ac

292 strong basis for future targeted delivery of immunosuppressive drugs with improved efficiency and red

293 his ADC may lead to a new class of selective immunosuppressive drugs with improved safety and extend

294 ized, controlled trial to compare adjunctive immunosuppressive drugs with prednisone alone.

295 man transplant recipients remain tethered to immunosuppressive drugs with rare exceptions.

296 llowed by the addition of more slowly acting immunosuppressive drugs with superior adverse event prof

297 pients enrolled in a prospective multicenter immunosuppressive drug withdrawal clinical trial.

298 tolerance induction protocols with complete immunosuppressive drug withdrawal have been tested in hu

299 imary endpoint was freedom from all systemic immunosuppressive drugs without resumption up to 12 mont

300 s (GCs) have been used for more than 50 y as immunosuppressive drugs, yet their efficacy in macrophag